Federal court reigns in use of Tasers

[jks9199]

I'm curious about something...

On the surface, a LEO tasering a subject in a traffic stop where the subject isn't threatening the officer and isn't trying to flee can be painted as an overzealous that for some reason just has to use the TASER on the guy.

But aren't there still risks in that situation? JKS wrote in the LEO forum that in an encounter, the police are responsible for the subject's safety. IIRC, intersections are where the most accidents occur.

Could there be a situation where the subject isn't directly threatening the officer, but is still placing himself or the officer in danger by behaving erratically enough to place himself or the officer in a position where they are at substantial risk of being accidentally hit by oncoming traffic?

Generally speaking, a LEO in the US is allowed to use reasonable force to prevent harm to himself, or to others, including the subject. An example of this sort of thing might be using a Taser to subdue a suicidal person. The ruling in this case notes that traffic was apparently light and the nearest witnesses were 50 or so feet away. (The opinion puts, in my opinion, rather too much weight on a person being 20 to 25 feet away... but that's another issue. Look up Tueller drill or the 21 foot rule.)

Again -- my reading of the situation suggests that Officer McPherson had every reason to believe that he was dealing with a dangerously irrational person, and that force was needed to subdue him to protect both Bryan and the public.

 

[MJS]

In Canada, Tasers are being used FAR too often, most famously against a disoriented man at Vancouver airport. He died. There were at least 4 officers there facing an unarmed man. Why taser him?! In my province officers tasered a teenage girl who was already in a holding cell. It's getting ridiculous.

The CBC did a study of Tasers and found that up to 20% or so administer more voltage than is listed by the manufacturer. These things are insanely dangerous weapons that some police seem far too willing to use.

Bring on more regulations!

Out of curiosity, what are the policies for the PD in question, regarding the use of force? As its been said already, in many cases, there was an already existing condition prior to the taser use. Additionally, when it comes to officer safety, the taser will most likely be used. Arch commented on this.

Regarding the people in the holding cell...keep in mind, just because someone is 'detained' or 'restrained' does not mean that they're not capable of resisting. I've seen guys arrested, put into a cell, still act like a complete jackass, doing things such as trying to block the camera that monitors that cell, trying to flood the cell, making aggressive actions and comments towards the officers, causing harm to themselves, ie: punching the walls and throwing themselves into the walls. The Taser is perfectly legit to use in those cases.

 

[MJS]

I'm curious about something...

On the surface, a LEO tasering a subject in a traffic stop where the subject isn't threatening the officer and isn't trying to flee can be painted as an overzealous that for some reason just has to use the TASER on the guy.

But aren't there still risks in that situation? JKS wrote in the LEO forum that in an encounter, the police are responsible for the subject's safety. IIRC, intersections are where the most accidents occur.

Could there be a situation where the subject isn't directly threatening the officer, but is still placing himself or the officer in danger by behaving erratically enough to place himself or the officer in a position where they are at substantial risk of being accidentally hit by oncoming traffic?

An incident that happened a few months ago, where I work. Took a 911 call from a guy who resides at a group home. Rambled on with some crazy questions and hangs up. As protocol, a cop is sent. Less than a minute later, another call from the same place, this time from staff, stating that the guy is out of control, throwing things around, making threats to staff, and ran out of the house.

More officers are sent. First one on scene, finds this guy carrying a fire extinguisher, which he was shooting all over the street, and still rambling on. Other officers arrive, including a K9. The supervisor that was also going, stated that if the guy did not comply willingly, to use the taser first, then the dog if need be.

So here we have a guy who wasnt disrectly making threats to the officer, as he was walking away and just rambling about nothing in particular, as well as walking in the middle of the road, and carrying an object that could be used as a weapon.

In the end, they got the guy calmed enough, cuffed him, etc. In the end, the taser was not used, but was something that would have been well within their rights to use.