• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taser Use

Is using a taser to arrest a noncoperative but nonviolent person "excessive force"


  • Total voters
    50
First of all Police are law enforcement officers...enforce the laws as written is what we do...we do not obey the people...we work for the people and unfortunately its some of the people that we have to taser and arrest and sometimes shoot.
Lets round this up quickly...if people were allowed to disobey the police in the course of arrests or doing their duty...police eventually would be rendered useless and the wild west would be promptly back as the rule of society...he who shoots first wins.
If your stopped for a traffic violation that police officer is ENFORCING TRAFFIC LAWS....You do not get to decide what information is pertinent to the situation, the police have sole dibs on that...no cop is going to ask you frivolous questions for fun...they dont have time for that...If you are told you are under arrest and you non violently refuse to comply after reasonable non contact means to get your compliance...well you know what happened to the young lady that caused this thread to be written....

I am not against using non-lethal force against anyone using violence. That is my line in the sand is violence.

What you are assuming is that every traffic cop is going to be following the same guidelines. That is not 100% true, as there are many recorded instances of cops going overboard. If they pulled me over for a traffic violation, and then ask me where I'm going...then I could tell them that I wish not to disclose that information, but yes I was speeding, ran the light, or whatever.

If they say that I'm under arrest, read me my Miranda rights, and tell me why I'm being arrested....then they grab my wrists and attempt to cuff me...at this point any sort of push back, or resistance would be a minor form of violence. Now if it was something as simple as the cuffs pinched the skin on my hand or something and I get nailed with a baton then that is overboard....but if I resist by throwing my body around into the officer or whatever then I am crossing the line.

It is a two-way street in these sorts of situations. Just like some people you have to taser, shoot, or arrest; there are some cops who go well beyond what they are supposed to do.

A police officer's first job is to keep the peace, not enforce the laws. I don't think we'll ever reach and accord there, but we maybe able to on where the line in the sand is for people and cops.
 
Note that so far the courts have disagreed with you.

So you believe that tasing a person who is simply sitting down is acceptable?

They werent simply sitting down...they were placed under arrest and refusing to exit the vehicle...so if the police didnt taser her...and just bully grabbed her and fought her out of the car and she got badly hurt...that would have been better ?...now keep this one thought in mind...shes under arrest...no matter what she has got to go in the end...so the question is how do you get there if shes refusing
 
You missed a whole lot of points of the issue...basically what you said is right...and court is where you will be...if you refuse to comply to my orders...your going whether you like it or not...PERIOD....I know some alphas males think they are the top of the food chain...they learn they are not..even if its temporary...

And this attitude is why cops are the target of many peoples hatred.
 
The line is drawn by compliance....comply and theres NO PROBLEM whatsoever...lol...gotta love these threads...everyone blames the cops and totally blows past the person REFUSED mulitiple requests for compliance...let me ask you this...were the police supposed to tell this woman..ok you wont comply you can go...Its simple...you disagree with the police, fine..comply theres no problem, you will have your day in court...

No, the line is not drawn at compliance. If a cop comes to my house and tells me to let him in, I am going to say no unless he has paperwork. If he tasers me for saying no, I am going to make some money off the police. If you had read the article I linked, you would see that so far, the courts have agreed that in this case, the cops acted improperly.
 
I am not against using non-lethal force against anyone using violence. That is my line in the sand is violence.

What you are assuming is that every traffic cop is going to be following the same guidelines. That is not 100% true, as there are many recorded instances of cops going overboard. If they pulled me over for a traffic violation, and then ask me where I'm going...then I could tell them that I wish not to disclose that information, but yes I was speeding, ran the light, or whatever.

If they say that I'm under arrest, read me my Miranda rights, and tell me why I'm being arrested....then they grab my wrists and attempt to cuff me...at this point any sort of push back, or resistance would be a minor form of violence. Now if it was something as simple as the cuffs pinched the skin on my hand or something and I get nailed with a baton then that is overboard....but if I resist by throwing my body around into the officer or whatever then I am crossing the line.

It is a two-way street in these sorts of situations. Just like some people you have to taser, shoot, or arrest; there are some cops who go well beyond what they are supposed to do.

A police officer's first job is to keep the peace, not enforce the laws. I don't think we'll ever reach and accord there, but we maybe able to on where the line in the sand is for people and cops.

Cops are not in the wrong for using force to subdue and uncooperative suspect. The suspect is in the wrong for using force against police who did nothing illegal. SUspects do not get to choose which laws and rules they are going to follow. They especially don't get to sue the police for checkin 'em up for gettin out of line.
 
Note that so far the courts have disagreed with you.

So you believe that tasing a person who is simply sitting down is acceptable?

No I disagree with that statement that courts have disagreed...there are thousands of tazings...and the courts upheld them as well as went against that particular tasing.....Personally and this is just my opinion...take the tasers if you want...if the courts say no more...nothing changes except the means they will get her out of the car the next time...but out she is going to go either way.
 
Tazing a pregnant woman that refuses to sign a ticket and is non violent, is overboard. Plain and simple.

The officer was obligated by law to arrest the woman. He told her that. She refused to exit the vehicle. Which method available to him... dragging her out by force and throwing her on the ground to cuff her, hitting her with a baton until she complied, macing her until she complied... would you have preferred him to use?
 
They werent simply sitting down...they were placed under arrest and refusing to exit the vehicle...so if the police didnt taser her...and just bully grabbed her and fought her out of the car and she got badly hurt...that would have been better ?...now keep this one thought in mind...shes under arrest...no matter what she has got to go in the end...so the question is how do you get there if shes refusing

Let me remind you of the words I was replying to:

If you are told you are under arrest and you non violently refuse to comply after reasonable non contact means to get your compliance...well you know what happened to the young lady that caused this thread to be written....
 
Cops are not in the wrong for using force to subdue and uncooperative suspect. The suspect is in the wrong for using force against police who did nothing illegal. SUspects do not get to choose which laws and rules they are going to follow. They especially don't get to sue the police for checkin 'em up for gettin out of line.

Look there is no doubt that there are moron cops that use excessive force...no one denies that...and there are bad cops and there are cops that make honest errors in judgement...that is all true but the lionshare of cops do a good job and just do it...cops have forever been the recipients of disdain...because humans have a natural aversion of being told what to do...we know that...but we still have to do the job and get it done..
 
And this attitude is why cops are the target of many peoples hatred.

No, cops are people of many people's hatred because there are personalities out there who instinctively fight all authority, legit or not.

I haven't taken any of the anti-police activists seriously for years. They always blame the cops first, never the victim. Always. The suspect could've shot fifteen cops and if one officer takes a pot shot at him, it's BRUTALITY!
 
The officer was obligated by law to arrest the woman. He told her that. She refused to exit the vehicle. Which method available to him... dragging her out by force and throwing her on the ground to cuff her, hitting her with a baton until she complied, macing her until she complied... would you have preferred him to use?

Use of words would have better handled the situation then sending 50,000 volts of electricity through a pregnant woman. It is a situation where no use of force looks good. You have to use the brain in your skull to solve some problems.
 
First of all Police are law enforcement officers...enforce the laws as written is what we do...we do not obey the people...we work for the people and unfortunately its some of the people that we have to taser and arrest and sometimes shoot.
Lets round this up quickly...if people were allowed to disobey the police in the course of arrests or doing their duty...police eventually would be rendered useless and the wild west would be promptly back as the rule of society...he who shoots first wins.
If your stopped for a traffic violation that police officer is ENFORCING TRAFFIC LAWS....You do not get to decide what information is pertinent to the situation, the police have sole dibs on that...no cop is going to ask you frivolous questions for fun...they dont have time for that...If you are told you are under arrest and you non violently refuse to comply after reasonable non contact means to get your compliance...well you know what happened to the young lady that caused this thread to be written....

I take exception to the bolded portion...

sure, you guys are free to ask for any information that you believe is pertinent... but the other side of the coin has the civilians with the right to remain silent if he believes the information is not relevant.
 
And this attitude is why cops are the target of many peoples hatred.

And this is the attitude which contributes to cops going into their job with a bad attitude. Cops by and large do a difficult job very well. While there are bad cops, and cops make mistakes, they still by and large do a very good job overall.
 
Let me remind you of the words I was replying to:


Ok im not getting your point though...She was inside the vehicle..she was told to sign the summons she refused...she was told to exit the vehicle she refused...she was told she was under arrest and she continued to refuse..

Now whats ironic unless I missed it no one has mentioned where the original cop screwed up and caused this entire thing...
I and we as police force never asked for you to sign our summons...we wrote it and handed it to you...no sig necessary...and if any dept required that you ask for the sig and she refuses...you merely put in the sig line...driver refused to sign and initial it...case closed everyone goes on their merry way
 
Use of words would have better handled the situation then sending 50,000 volts of electricity through a pregnant woman. It is a situation where no use of force looks good. You have to use the brain in your skull to solve some problems.

Apparently words had failed, since several officers had not found the proper words to get her to willingly exit the care AFTER she had been placed under arrest.
 
Look there is no doubt that there are moron cops that use excessive force...no one denies that...and there are bad cops and there are cops that make honest errors in judgement...that is all true but the lionshare of cops do a good job and just do it...cops have forever been the recipients of disdain...because humans have a natural aversion of being told what to do...we know that...but we still have to do the job and get it done..

I think you might have replied to the wrong person...?

But I do agree with you. Look, I know the cops aren't my friends and they don't have MY best interests necessarily at heart, but I always give them the benefit of the doubt. I've been screwed by police. I got a DUID when I was sober. I got picked up for a warrant I didn't know I had because the cops lied and said I was a suspect at a burglary of an unoccupied frat house. I've got reasons for not liking cops. But I still give them all the benefit of the doubt and know that corrupt or violent cops are the exception, not the rule.
 
No, the line is not drawn at compliance. If a cop comes to my house and tells me to let him in, I am going to say no unless he has paperwork. If he tasers me for saying no, I am going to make some money off the police. If you had read the article I linked, you would see that so far, the courts have agreed that in this case, the cops acted improperly.

If a cop comes to your house without a warrant and asks you to let him in and he tasers you...hes going to jail after he loses his job.
 
I take exception to the bolded portion...

sure, you guys are free to ask for any information that you believe is pertinent... but the other side of the coin has the civilians with the right to remain silent if he believes the information is not relevant.

You do, IIRC, have to give information that is nessecary, but not details. You can't sit there like a stone statue and refuse everything the cops asks you. That is not covered by the right of silence.
 
Ok im not getting your point though...She was inside the vehicle..she was told to sign the summons she refused...she was told to exit the vehicle she refused...she was told she was under arrest and she continued to refuse..

Now whats ironic unless I missed it no one has mentioned where the original cop screwed up and caused this entire thing...
I and we as police force never asked for you to sign our summons...we wrote it and handed it to you...no sig necessary...and if any dept required that you ask for the sig and she refuses...you merely put in the sig line...driver refused to sign and initial it...case closed everyone goes on their merry way

I understand you feel tasering in this situation is appropriate. That is the small questions. The big question is where is the line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable. You said noncompliance, which would include some one simply sitting down. Is it acceptable to taser people sitting down in the open? When is it unacceptable to taser, when acceptable?
 
I take exception to the bolded portion...

sure, you guys are free to ask for any information that you believe is pertinent... but the other side of the coin has the civilians with the right to remain silent if he believes the information is not relevant.

Sure you do...no argument, then the cop gets to decide to ask you come to the precinct and if you refuse he can arrest you IF the situation merits that action...were doing a hypothetical thing here
 
If a cop comes to your house without a warrant and asks you to let him in and he tasers you...hes going to jail after he loses his job.

But I have been nonclompliant, which you claimed made tasering acceptable. See the problem?

Note: I do not have good answers on this, which is why I made this thread. The story made me think, and realize I don't have a good answet for where the line should be drawn, nor even whether the police where justified in this particular case. I am not trying to be difficult(well, not entirely), but I think there are some really good questions in stuff like thist and the comnversation can be interesting.
 
I understand you feel tasering in this situation is appropriate. That is the small questions. The big question is where is the line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable. You said noncompliance, which would include some one simply sitting down. Is it acceptable to taser people sitting down in the open? When is it unacceptable to taser, when acceptable?

Redress there is no answer to the question where is the line drawn...the answer is the line is drawn at the time the incident is in progress and the cop makes the decision on the fly what his course of action is....
All depts are different...so im on the spot here...I can only speak from my experience based on my depts sop...I cant speak for other depts that have differing SOPs that the operate under...thats where alot of confusion comes in with caine and I when in these kinds of threads...
There is no cookie cutter answers most of the time...your dealing with SITUATIONAL decision making...not cut and dried rules and regulations...each decision is based on a set of rules with the final decsion being made by the actions of the moment....I hope that made sense
 
But I have been nonclompliant, which you claimed made tasering acceptable. See the problem?

Note: I do not have good answers on this, which is why I made this thread. The story made me think, and realize I don't have a good answet for where the line should be drawn, nor even whether the police where justified in this particular case. I am not trying to be difficult(well, not entirely), but I think there are some really good questions in stuff like thist and the comnversation can be interesting.

I know this sounds harsh and PEOPLE HATE THESE WORDS...I know that...but you have to comply, you dont have a choice and we wont give you one, once your placed under arrest...
 
Taser Pain May Be Considered by Supreme Court as Excessive Force - Yahoo! News



She sued the cops, and right now has won the suit, however the cops where granted immunity due to the law being considered too vague. Thursday SCOTUS meets to decide whether to hear the case.

So, now the question: the woman was no threat and was simply refusing to comply. In that type situation, is the inflicting of intense pain a violation of the constitution? A further question that does not translate well to a poll so just type out an answer...where does the line get drawn? When are police justified in using a taser, and when is it excessive?

Violent means should not be used on non-violent individuals. So yeah, it was execessive force.

At one point if I recall correctly the electric chair was considered cruel and inhumane and as such could no longer be used, because of the pain that it inflicted. So besides the difference of death (though tasers can cause death it is mainly accidental when used by police)...just what IS the difference? If we're not allowed to use electricity on the condemned why would it be acceptable to use it on someone that is intended to live?
 
I understand you feel tasering in this situation is appropriate. That is the small questions. The big question is where is the line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable. You said noncompliance, which would include some one simply sitting down. Is it acceptable to taser people sitting down in the open? When is it unacceptable to taser, when acceptable?

If you're talking about a protest where people refuse to disperse when told, the preferred method is for 2 officers to pick up the limp body and toss it in the paddy wagon. That's not always possible or practical, but that's the preferred method. I've personally not heard of leo's walking down a group of protestors tasing them one by one. Mace, yes, tear gas, yes... Tasing, no.

In this particular case, in the closed quarters of a car mace is not a good option because it lasts a looong time, and blows back in the officer's faces. She was under arrest; therefore, they had to take her in.

In my mind, this woman created the problem, escalated the problem, and showed zero concern for the well-being of her unborn child by forcing the officers to take strong measures in order to secure a person who was now under arrest.

Anyway, no sense me saying the same thing ten ways, lol. I say the whole thing is the woman's fault. If I'd been on the jury, she wouldn't be getting a cushy payday, that's for sure. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom