I had both used on me in order ot be certified in their use.  If you think they aren't force, then you are using a unique definition of force.  They are simply less-lethal weapons.

True, I do think I have a unique definition of force. I also think we are way too soft on criminals, not necessarily the Police but our judicial system as a whole.

I do believe these officers where justified in using force. They were sent to investigate a "a man and a woman fighting".  They arrived to find a disturbance in progress, and in addition an altercation occurred in the presence of police. They obviously felt compelled to act.

Now, with that said.....I have three important questions:

1.)  Is the Tazer considered a low-level use of force (like OC spray-unlikely to cause injury), or is it in the intermediate range (that which can cause non-serious injury)?
2.)  If the use of a Taser is considered "intermediate", why were low-level options by-passed?
3.)  Why wasn't the woman charged with a crime?

ShootinShane you wrote this in your post...actually its the other way around..You assess first..its fluid...but you ALWAYS assess first.
Your responses remind me of a situation that occured in St.Paul Mn about two weeks ago..where a perp and a carjack victim were wrestling over a gun...police arrived on the scene..and in a classic case of control before assessment, one of the leos shot BOTH with a shotgun...killing the crime victim...wounding the perp.
I hope you won't take any offense to this ...but I hope youre not a LEO...have a ccw permit..or in any manner carry a weapon as part of what you do.
There are levels of deterence in any situation.The lowest being presence..the highest deadly force..Going counter to a verbal command (and according to most acticles I've read thats all she did) does not warrant a nightstick,a taser or peppergas as a immediate reaction.

Based on this she commited CPC 240+242 Assault & Battery (pushing her brother) and possibly CPC 148 Resist/evade/obstruct (when she ran and refused to stop). Both bookable misdemeanors. They should have booked her.

I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I didn't mean they should come in cracking heads. My point was that the arguing/wrestling has to stop first before an Officer can assess the situation. Once the Police arrive, THEY control the situation, not the individuals involved. If the argument/wrestling is NOT stopped, how could you ever tell who is the victim and who is the perp? Your scenario of the carjacking is a perfect example. The Officer involved should have pointed his shotgun and ordered both parties to freeze. Chances are, the law-abiding citizen is going to freeze. Either way, you reach for that gun and your dead. If the BG DID end up with the gun, the BG would have surely shot the Officer while the Officer was "assessing" who was who. The situation must be under control FIRST (and not necessarily by force) and THEN you sort out the facts.

And, I never said the womans situation warranted a nightstick as a nightstick is not in the same category as peppergas and tazer. Peppergas and tazers are used to avoid the use of a nightstick. What would you have done after the verbal commands were ignored?

No offense, but I hope YOU are not an LEO. Unfortunately, while you are assessing a dangerous situation one day, you will be shot because you did not take control of the situation first.      

Why is it that because we disagree, Ponyboy and yourself leap to the conclusion that I am trying to paint you as cop-bashers?

Given the limited information available, I find it difficult to reach a conclusion that no threat was present. Perhaps the threat was not immediately present, but I can see no reason why they should have allowed an irrational, agitated suspect to enter her home before assessing the situation and better evaluating her state of mind and intentions.

So, instead you believe the right thing was done in stunning her which in turn caused the death of an unborn child.

If you think that the right of those officers to make sure there was no possibility of her harming herself or others, even though they had no reason to believe this was imminent, justifies taking a human life then why don't you just come out and say it.

To you, the baby dying was worth it because no further problems were created for the officers. If this is not the case, then please explain why you think this type of practice should be allowed if it has the possiblity of causing serious injuries and or death, such as in this case, when the actions of the person this force is used upon does not warrant serious injury or death. When you can explain that to me, then I will shut up. Until then, I still think you are wrong and you can continue writing one line replies until your fingers fall off and I won't care.

I'll be at work for the next 12 hours, but when I return I will be expecting to be amazed by your wit and logic and will be prepared to change my stance after you eloquently explain away the death of a child caused by unnecessary force that you believe was totally justified.

What a twister!  If you define what happened as "unecessary", of course you can't justify the death of the fetus, but no one is trying to justify the death.  You act like the officers *knew* the woman was pregnant and *knew* their actions would cause this death.  This outcome is so rare as to be almost unforeseeable, whereas the kinds of situations the taser is designed for occur all the time.  That's why the taser exists and why it's used as an alternative to more deadly force.  Did your degree in criminal justice include this training?

It is very sad and unfortunate that this woman lost her baby in this way.  No one wants this to have happened, but shit happens on every job.  And yes, sometimes even death.  But how many injuries and deaths are prevented by the regular use of less-than-lethal options?  You have to look at the larger picture, while you work hard to prevent these kind of tragedies.  But they are *not* completely avoidable, and to think they are is ridiculous.

An analogy is the death penalty: You for it?  I'd bet you are.  But what if we *know* there are innocent people being put to death.  Do we stop the practice, or do we accept some errors as the price society pays to have this policy?

Of course, I imagine you'll just ignore this post as well.

Or on the other hand this points out how tough use of force decisions can be.

What if she is 5'10" 275 and the pushing they describe her doing was throwing her brother around, physically??

What if the police saw her, her actions, and felt that there was no way that they would win a physical confrontation with her without somene being injured?

This sounds like a crime in progress, Disordely Conduct, Battery, etc. No not the crime of the century.

The cops show up and say "miss could you stop throwing that little man around......." She responds with more pushing and verbal threats to do more damage. Along with a very colorful use of the english language.

Now the police can use force to protect themselves or others......

Also I wonder why the possibility that her fighting didn't cause here problems hasn't been considered.

As far as why she wasn't charged. The police don't have to physically arrest someone in order for the DA to charge that person with a crime. The police can complete a report, which is reviewed by the DA who can then "order in" a person to court, to face charges. Physically arresting her after this might be seen as over-aggresive etc. The police dept may also wish to fully investigate the incident, both before and after the officer used the Taser before deciding who will be charged and for what.

In this case, the suspect was apparently breaking laws (assaulting other parties at the scene and attempting to evade a lawful investigative detention). The officers had to use some kind of force, because she was not complying with their lawful orders, and once they are there, the officers have a duty to prevent the disturbance from re-escalating. What about the relative risks of a use of force options?

Empty hand control carries a risk of injury to persons, both the officers and the suspect. When police officers train in this stuff, they often blow out each other's elbows and knees, and this is under strict instruction, at half speed, in a controlled, padded environment. I've been there and seen it.

Taken to the streets, even a simple takedown, executed in a texbook fashion, can cause serious injuries. I have personally witnessed a picture perfect takedown of a very violent, combative subject (who had just assaulted several people with a knife) go bad when the suspect caught her foot on the end of a carpet, and that extra bit of force caused her to land facefirst onto a doorframe, knocking out all of her front teeth. That was obviously not the officer's intention, he needed to and was justified in using soft empty-hand control tactics to arrest the suspect, and he performed the tactic properly. But, even then, he still severely hurt the suspect. No technique, no matter how good the intentions, training and execution in completely safe. Empty hand control (the use of wrist and joint locks and soft, judo-based takedowns) is far less likely to cause injury than hard hands (strikes and kicks) or impact weapons (batons, clubs, saps, ect.), but it still carries substantial risk, and the risk of injury to the officer is still great.

Electrical weapons have less risk of injury to suspects and officers than empty hand tactics. Especially the new generation. The older Taser-type weapons were pain compliance. The new ones actually override the body's control of its muscles. You cannot do anything except fall down and curl into the fetal position (personal experience again).

Chemical agents, particularly OC, have even less risk of injury to suspects and officers than electrical or empty hands, but sometimes cannot be used because of environmental conditions (large numbers of innocents around, like in this case, winds, enclosed spaces).

Use of force situations are tough. Some situations, regardless of the officer's attempts to communicate with irrational, emotionally distraught people, will require a use of force. Electrical and chemical weapons are usually lower levels of force than going "hands-on." This is not "proactive" police work, this is validated procedure, backed by statistics and anecdotal evidence.

So, knowing that the officers had been trained that they had a much greater risk of seriously hurting this woman and a had greater risk of injury to themselves if they used other force options, how can you still condemn their concious, rational decision to use a lower level of force to control an unstable situation and effect a lawful arrest?

Given the details given thus far, yes, I believe that the police responded appropriately and within reason. While the death of the unborn child is unfortunate, I believe the responsibility for it's well being rests primarilly upon the mother. She was certainly not acting in her child's best behalf. More people need to accept responsibilty fot their actions and the consequences thereof. You simply cannot ignore police who were called to quell a disturbance in which you are part of without expecting some mild degree of force to be applied. This lady, fully knowledgable of her pregnancy, simply made a very bad decision that drew a fairly predictable response from the police. The fact that she not only failed to disclose her medical condition, but willfully endangered her unborn child, is not the fault of the police.



For that to apply, you have to make the leap in assuming that they had no reason to believe there was no imminent possibility of here harming herself or other. Perhaps you are willing to make that assumption on the sketchy details provided. I am not. Someone obviously believed the situation sufficiently threatening to warrant calling the police. They have to respond with that in mind.



Yup, that's exactly what I said, isn't it. Talk about putting words in other people's mouths.



The use of non-lethal force should not be discontinued simply because of some freak situation/occurance. Tazers and OC/pepper spray are routinely used without causing serious injury or death. I can find instances of people dying from simply being handcuffed or otherwise restrained. Would you suggest that police stop handcuffing or physically restaining people, too? Why not? It might save someone's life in some totally unpredictable and freakish situation.

I would seriously hope that we do not legislate or establish broad policy based on extremely rare events, even if it does "save just one life" or "it's for the children".

I've got a neat idea. Let's fill up all the Police cars with soft, fluffy pillows. Then, when called to a disturbance, the Police can get out and pillowfight the individuals involved to see who wins. Sure, the Police wouldn't be able to enforce the law anymore; but hey, no one would ever get hurt would they?  

Well, eventually someone would probably catch a zipper in the eye and lose their vision in that eye. Just imagine the lawsuit. Perhaps we could give the police Socker Boppers or those foam noodle pool toys. That'll show the bad guys who's the boss, won't it? [:)]

I love it...

The line "Police, believing she was the suspect in the dispute for which they were called, repeatedly ordered the woman to stop." is all that has me wondering.  It makes it sound like they found out they were at the wrong location after the incident.  They also don't go into what was being screamed, and every exact thing that occured.  So we can't make a judgement with the limited information available.

For instance, if she was screaming "Oh f*** it's the cops, get inside" and started pushing the guy that wouldn't let her get inside, then I'd understand the use of force.  If she was screaming "Oh f*** I got the runs, lemme get to the toilet" and started pushing the guy that wouldn't let her get inside, then I would say the use of force was excessive.

I just want to clear something up about my comment on this case.  

I did not say:  "I dislike cops"  

What I said was: "I don't like cops"

I don't like or dislike cops. I have no ax to grind one way or the other.  I am not a "police booster" or a knee jerk "cop knocker" either.

I see cops for what they are.  People.  Some are heros.  Some are bad.  Most are just doing their job.  

What always bothers me about these situations is that people are now doing a lot of "Monday morning quarterbacking" about what happened.  

It is easy to sit around in a comfortable arm chair with a glass of wine in our hand and judge this cop. We can analyze what he did in slow motion.

But things like this don't happen in slow motion.  They happen very quickly. And sometimes you have to make snap decisions based on training and the information you have at hand, which can be sketchy at best.

This cop did not choose to go to this party, and he had no idea what he was going to encounter before he was in the tube.  

And when things began to happen it all probably spun out of control and very quickly indeed.  

Now we sit around and pick apart every thing he did second by second.  (without having most of the real facts or flavor of what happened)  

It bothers me most because it reminds me of people like you and I who have to use a weapon in self defense and then have some liberal prosecutor tell a jury pick our actions apart the same way.

Violence doesn't happen rationally or slowly.  It happens very quickly.

And one more thing, do you thing this officer isn't paying for what happened??????  

Is any of us so foolish to think he doesn't wake up in a cold sweat every single night?  

Do you think he doesn't have nightmares about what happened and his part in it?  

Do you think it bothers him not that everyone in his town is looking at him sideways?  

I hope none of you ever have to be in a situation where you have to make a hard, quick descision (that goes bad) and then have a bunch of people who weren't there sit around with beer in hand and judge you.


Think about it.


Zen

I think that you are the first and only one here to draw that conclusion.

You are odviously talking from a base of ignorance. LOL TACKLING!

No apology nessesary Keeper of Bees.  No offense was taken.  

I just wanted my thoughts to be clear to everyone.


Zen

You were doing ok before we showed up.

Of course we are basing all this on news accounts............

Police have to react to what they know, or should know when they decide whether to take action or not and what action they decide to take.

If they knew or should have known she was pregnant that may change how the use of force used is judged. On the other hand I have no idea what the training program for the Tazer is and whether it addresses using against pregnant people, or if it does whether it is recomended not to be used etc.

What ever happened to your home being your castle?  When did we start allowing government employees to breach the walls of our castle and hurt our family members?

Uh, she was *outside* ...

One thing I'd like to add to this.
In the "heat of the moment", people (civilians or others) can become so emotionally charged that they don't hear commands or possibly have the frame of mind to acknowledge them. The insistance that the lady just decided to ignore the order from the officer, is quite possibly wrong.

I also think you guys should lighten up on each other a bit, specifically pony and boomer. None of us has any credibility  for arguing this specific case based upon that one posted story. Also, both of you have "put words in the mouth" of the other.  If you guys want to debate reasonable use of force by law enforcement then try and do it without wild conjecture...

"I just don't agree with so called "proactive" law enforcement. By your reasoning everyone should be considered a dangerous criminal, which is the same reasoning that brings us some of the idiotic laws we have to put up with everyday. Hell, why don't cops just taser everyone they come in contact with "for their own safety" so they never have any problems?" Ponyboy


"So if I were to run through a shopping mall waving a gun, a you would suggest that the police do nothing about it until I actually shot somebody? Is that what you mean by not engaging in "pro-active law enforcement"? No offense, but that sounds like horse crap to me."    Boomer