Are LEOs forgetting how to arrest suspects without using a taser?

[Kittan Bachika]

http://youtu.be/-1293mS_7xE

There was a report on the news about pilots forgetting how to fly.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/to...etting-how-to-fly/OMbk1sQTGkavOZzKTOM0EA.cspx

Is this happening to LEOs?

I understand that Tasers are needed in certain situations. But in this case, all the LEO had to do was to take the suspect's wrists and cuff him. Am I wrong?

 

[Cyriacus]

Youre misinterpriting this - This is Officers being Intolerant. It happens.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1293mS_7xE&feature=youtu.behttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8dSL_2IKL0

Tisnt a matter of misunderstanding approaches - Its a conscious choice.

 

[Archangel M]

If you watch it from 2:18 on you hear a bit from a bystander who was outside watching AND listening to the whole exchange. Do you know what the cop was confronting the man for (if it was "man threatening baystanders with a knife" for example...that changes things)? Did the cop just randomly walk up and point a Taser at the first person he saw???

A person standing there with his hands up is far from being "compliant" if hes telling you to **** yourself...he wont lay on the ground...he wont put his hands behind his back...etc. Would you holster up and try to force him to the ground and cuff him??? That is what the Taser is designed to prevent.

The filmer tells the woman at 2:18 (who appears to be trying to defend the cops actions BTW) that this guy is mentally handicapped and doesn't understand directions...while at the same time you can see the guy following the officers directions to put his hand behind his back.....contradictory.

ON THE OTHER HAND...that could have been an excessive use of force and that officer should be disciplined/fired/etc if it was.

My point is you (and I) know ZIP as to the lawfulness of that Taser deployment based on what you saw.

 

[JohnEdward]

I would like to add to the individual is clearly mentally retarded. The man is much larger and bigger than the cop, and being mentally retorted doesn't make a person non-violent or not capable of violence. The cop can't instantly assess the man's cognitive abilities beyond following directives. Or if he is violent and if so to what means. It isn't like dealing with a street punk who has more indicators of his level of violence and if he is deliberately ignoring directives. The kids who film the video in my opinion are morons. Not for filming the incident, but for failing to use proper judgement, making assumptions and acting on them. They are seated behind glass and can't hear what is happening. They verbally interfere with the arrest. They are not objective and don't listen to the woman who tells them the man was not compliant. It was clear the man wasn't compliant as the cop had to tell the man many times to straighten arms out to the side, instead of placing them in a push up position. The cop was showed patience and the man finally followed the directive. This shows the man understood commands. The reasons for the man not to follow the commands may be due to his retardation. That can't be instantly evaluated. I feel the cop treated the man as any other non-compliant. The cop showed patience and could have tazed him much sooner then he did. I notice that the man was shot with the probes, he seem to react to the pain of the probes and hunch over. But he was able to break his fall with his left hand. It seem to me the cop retrained on his tazing. Or because of the size of the man, and his pain tolerance level he didn't have the common reaction to being tazed.

On the cop evaluating the decision. It isn't easy to determine if a person is mentally retarded and then to what level, and if it is being faked in order to deceive the cop. It is more evident to evaluate a person when that person in clearly suffering greatly from sever mental retardation. This man wasn't suffering severely from mental retardation, and didn't clearly show he wasn't a threat to the officer or others. And like it was said before we don't know why the officer showed up and was trying to get the man to comply. Maybe he made a threat, demonstrated violence, he is a big guy and may not clearly understand his behavior or strength. Just because your mentally retarded doesn't mean you are void of criminal behavior or criminal thoughts. Many mental retarded people have committed violent acts. It is the court system which decides if they are capable of standing trial and held accountable for their actions.

What special procedures are police to follow when dealing with people suffering from retardation? I do believe people with mental retardation should get special consideration. What is the answer. It isn't cop hating.

 

[Archangel M]

You deal with what is presented to you. You respond as a "reasonable person" would respond.

Unless you have foreknowledge or very obvious indicators of "disability", expecting cops to assume or over-analyze a persons mental status (and expecting special treatment because of it) is a recipe for dead cops.

 

[Drac]

Is this happening to LEOs?

I understand that Tasers are needed in certain situations. But in this case, all the LEO had to do was to take the suspect's wrists and cuff him. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. I have had a good open dialoge with a suspect and as soon as they realize they are going to be " cuffed and stuffed" they fight like anything. It would have been nice to have had a Tazer back then instead of resorting to the physical..

 

[Kittan Bachika]

Thanks for the responses.

I understand that each situation for a LEO is different. I am not a LEO. But from what I have read and seen, I have seen LEOs deal with far more violent suspects without or limited
use of a taser. Even after the perp was on his stomach, the LEO could have simply grabbed his wrists and cuffed him without using the taser.

A LEO should never over analyze a situation. This LEO took a course of action and stuck to it. Which is what they were supposed to. What we were looking is what other ways this situation
could have been resolved. That is what is being asked and it should concern everyone because of the situation below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-gentle-mentally-ill-homeless-man-death.html


LEOs should use whatever they need to get the job done. But there is a problem if every issue has to be resolved with a taser.

There was an episode of COPS where a group of cops took down a bleeding naked man. They used pepper spray and restrained him in a group. No taser was used.

 

[Cyriacus]

Thanks for the responses.

I understand that each situation for a LEO is different. I am not a LEO. But from what I have read and seen, I have seen LEOs deal with far more violent suspects without or limited
use of a taser. Even after the perp was on his stomach, the LEO could have simply grabbed his wrists and cuffed him without using the taser.

A LEO should never over analyze a situation. This LEO took a course of action and stuck to it. Which is what they were supposed to. What we were looking is what other ways this situation
could have been resolved. That is what is being asked and it should concern everyone because of the situation below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-gentle-mentally-ill-homeless-man-death.html


LEOs should use whatever they need to get the job done. But there is a problem if every issue has to be resolved with a taser.

There was an episode of COPS where a group of cops took down a bleeding naked man. They used pepper spray and restrained him in a group. No taser was used.

It is easy to say that - But when actually confronted with the situation, you cant NOT Over-Analyse the possibilities.
Why do you think the way SWAT Teams breach buildings is virtually based on Military Standards (As a point of Comparison, Logic Wise)?

It seems excessive when you watch it from here, but from their Perspective, everything could have seemed different.

 

[Kittan Bachika]

I am not disagreeing with you. At the end of the day the LEO needs to be kept safe.
You mention possibilities. What if the perp had a heart condition or some
other medical condition?

LEOs have to look at all possibilities and be able to take action on each one. And these
are split second decisions.

 

[frank raud]

LEOs should use whatever they need to get the job done. But there is a problem if every issue has to be resolved with a taser.

There was an episode of COPS where a group of cops took down a bleeding naked man. They used pepper spray and restrained him in a group. No taser was used.

Please note in your COPS example, there were multiple LEOs working together to arrest the naked man. In the original video, there is only one officer facing a non-complying suspect. The Taser has largely replaced the baton and billy club as it is seen as safer for the officer and "looks" better than swinging a stick on someone.

 

[JohnEdward]

How much authority and power do we grant and entrust in our police is really the issue. We want to be safe and rescued, we want to keep crime in check, but we don't want it at the expense of being abused and oppressed, especially because they are public servants. We are very concerned about police abuse, and history and other places indicate that we should. Oh the other hand, we ask people who become LEOs to risk their lives, to deal with the ugly side of human behavior all of which takes a personal and psychological toll. On top of that all the other job demands, restrictions, and perimeters including those placed on them to insure public abuse doesn't take place.

We, as the public, don't want to give the police too much power or authority, as history shows that isn't a good thing, because abuse and corruption does occur. We want to be protected by humane ethical and moral officers, and not to be abused. To insure that we are very critical, maybe even hyper-critical, and scrutinize all police action. It is a difficult balancing act of the power and authority we give our police from being turned against us. Are we going too far in tightening the reins on our police. In restricting the powers and authority of our officers at the risk of being safe. Does the pendulum swing the other way. Being hyper-critical is there a point of immolation of the very purpose for having officers; to protect us from ourselves?

 

[Cyriacus]

How much authority and power do we grant and entrust in our police is really the issue. We want to be safe and rescued, we want to keep crime in check, but we don't want it at the expense of being abused and oppressed, especially because they are public servants.

This is the thing though - You cannot exactly have One, without the Other.

We are very concerned about police abuse, and history and other places indicate that we should. Oh the other hand, we ask people who become LEOs to risk their lives, to deal with the ugly side of human behavior all of which takes a personal and psychological toll. On top of that all the other job demands, restrictions, and perimeters including those placed on them to insure public abuse doesn't take place.

Yes. And sometimes we Criticise them for not having Inhuman Reaction Times. Ive heard of many Officers being Reprimanded for use of Force, when they couldnt have possibly known that the Situation wasnt as Harmful as it looked. Of course, this isnt always the case.

We, as the public, don't want to give the police too much power or authority, as history shows that isn't a good thing, because abuse and corruption does occur.

Corruption also Occurs when the Police do not have the Power to Act. Vigilantism, Generally.

We want to be protected by humane ethical and moral officers, and not to be abused. To insure that we are very critical, maybe even hyper-critical, and scrutinize all police action. It is a difficult balancing act of the power and authority we give our police from being turned against us. Are we going too far in tightening the reins on our police.

Highly Debatable both ways.

In restricting the powers and authority of our officers at the risk of being safe. Does the pendulum swing the other way. Being hyper-critical is there a point of immolation of the very purpose for having officers; to protect us from ourselves?

In a Way, if the Police are Unable to Act to Ensure the Safety of Others, We will be Less Safe. On the other hand, Limiting Police Power also creates the Possibility of Respect for the Police being Lowered, when they cannot do something, and a Crime Occurs as a Result. If the Police have Un Limtied Power, People Lose Respect for the Police because they DO Act. There is no Winning Path for the Police - People will Dislike them for one reason or another either way.

I have to note one thing though.
If the Police had the Right to Employ "Unnecessary" Force, as they have in the Previous Century, would their not be Less Crime?
Now, someone will immediately jump on the "Deterants are a Bad Concept!" thing; To which I would Reply, that perhaps they are - But then, without Deterants, there is no Foundation of Law.

Just My Contribution.

 

[JohnEdward]

I have to note one thing though.
If the Police had the Right to Employ "Unnecessary" Force, as they have in the Previous Century, would their not be Less Crime?
Now, someone will immediately jump on the "Deterants are a Bad Concept!" thing; To which I would Reply, that perhaps they are - But then, without Deterants, there is no Foundation of Law.

Just My Contribution.

in agreement, I was pointing out, if police power and authority experiences immolation have we shot ourselves in the foot? Does the crime rate increase, is there less public protection if our demands are too much scrutiny and restriction on our police? That is the question, I am just presenting it without opinion. People fear the fact other people have greater power over them, especially if that power is unethical and corrupt resulting in abuse of the public. That is a legitimate concern. It is a balancing act, a difficult one at that. The liberty of police powers are far more restricting in California them other places, except New York possibly, where police are subjected to far greater public and official scrutiny. I feel as a citizen, arresting philosophy and methodologies in California, I feel, are subjected to a higher sensitivity how the police interface and arrest the public, because of public opinion, and their social issues. In this case, the police lose authority, and control over a situation and suspects. People are less respectful and more belligerent, and criminals take it as an opportunity, which you don't see as much happening in say southern states where police are not under the same authority. It can be argued then is there less corruption of police officers when there is greater controls and scrutiny placed on them? Look at the history of the New York Police Dept, and other cities known for corrupt and abusive police depts. It can be said there was less street crime in those cities on the street level, but more in the police dept, It is a tough balancing act.

I feel the correlation between crime and police power has far less of an significant impact than society conditioning and behavior. I think you want to reduce crime make better citizens, i.e. squelch the idea that people have the social freedom to do what every they want. Instill the idea of social responsibly, i.e. crime is wrong, and should not be acceptable, or glamorized by society. Society must nurture, be responsible, and uphold the social contract. That reduces crime, we the people. Part of that is having an ethical and just police force. A corrupt and abusive police force defeats its purpose. But so does a police force without teeth. It is a balancing act.