Woman says she didn't deserve Taser treatment

Eyrie,

as you MUST have a crystal ball, please state what was in "the boy's mind" while this was happening?

or maybe you can read minds (if you didn't use your crystal ball that is)...please tell us...

Kel

Well whatever was in his mind was not on properly subduing her or on the "proper" training he had.

MrMoyer,

Please describe the "proper training" that the officer in question was supplied with (by his L.E.O.) to ensure he acted in the correct manner?

Also, please supply for those of us reading this thread how much training he received to make sure this didn't happen...

I am not standing up (or tearing down) this officer, but, inane, biased, unfounded allegations, and/or unsupported conclusions are morally and ethically wrong.

If he is guilty of a transgression of policy, or he violated the suspect's civil rights, then he should be disciplined (whether that is with his job, freedom, etc) and that will be up to the Police Chief, Sheriff, and/or a judge.

But let's not push an agenda.

Kel

I was not implying I know what his traing was or is. I am making a opinion based on the video. I would think, and hope that officers are trained with using the taser and trained in different scenarios, etc. But aside from that, even as a human being, don't ya think common sense or something kicks in to say hey, she had enough, or maybe I went over board?

Okay...I saw a damn drunken fool whose portrayal of a hysterical woman embarrassed me. Too bad the darn thing didn't just knock her out. No sympathy on that end.

The real problem with the police officer is that he was so obese he couldn't perform any basic physical submission techniques. Unfit for duty. Fatty needs to go back to basics. Basic training, that is.

MrMoyer,

I agree with your follow-on post. There is a point where, "a reasonable and prudent person...". I was commenting reference your statement.

I have seen L.E.O. where training is put on the back burner to save money, or have officers watch a video for high liability areas (it's terrible)..

As far as what the officer did or didn't do and what he was or wasn't thinking: Due process is for everyone, not just certain people. If the suspect's civil rights were violated then, as I said, the officer should face the consequences. But he should be afforded due process just like everyone else.

Harlan,
I have to agree with you. I have fought for a height weight requirement at my L.E.O. for awhile and keep getting the same old tired answer, "if we make certain physical standards mandatory, then we have to pay the officers to workout, or provide them with a place to workout...", put quite simply, they don't want to spend the money.

Again lack of funds for proper training (which btw leads to more lawsuits)...

Kel

Kel,

From the tone of your posts, it appears you have a vested interest in LEO. Too bad if I touched a raw nerve. All I saw, was Mr Tubby administering repeated shocks, beyond the point where it was necessary.

The last straw for me was when he continued to shock her causing her to collapse and hit her head on the rear side of the car. Was that absolutely necessary?

At no point was any attempt made to physically restrain the woman. Nor was there any attempt to continue to issue voice commands.

The device is dangerous, whether it be in the hands of a child, or someone trained in its use. I expected far more judicious use of the device from someone who supposedly would have had training in its use. Surely, with a 50,000v jolt you'd think she would be compliant enough to physically restrain. But seven times? Come on... you think that might be a little overkill?

Same goes for capsicum spray. I have seen our police here liberally use it beyond the point of necessity. The subject in question was not resisting arrest, yet, the police still sprayed him. And even as the subject went down holding his eyes, and was STILL obviously not resisting arrest, the police officer in question continued to administer the spray, before proceeding to manhandle the subject.

If the general public can visually discern the extent to which the use of such devices goes beyond the point of being appropriate, why can't the police in question? Why can't you?

I don't need a crystal ball or the ability to read minds to see that it's just another boy with a toy.

Perhaps the problem is not with me, but in addressing how LEOs present themselves and uphold their duties, especially in the eyes of the public.

Eyrie,

Please show in any of my posts where I have stood up for or displayed, "a vested interest" in the affairs of this officer (or any other officer for that matter).

I have simply said that he deserves the same due process that all subjects (and suspects) are gauranteed by the US Constitution.

I have neither defended or excused his behavior...

I AM a police officer and I defend the rights of all for due process, I have never trampled on a suspect's civil rights, if anything, I make sure the cases that I make are without reproach, above and beyond, that which I am required to do. I think everyone should be afforded the same opportunity.

But making a decision of guilt OR innocence by watching a video is about as ignorant as deciding someone's guilt or innocence of a crime by the color of their skin.

Let's be fair to everyone, not just who we (collectively) think we should be fair to.

If he is guilty of a transgression of policy or a crime then I am sure the investigation will bring it out and he will be punished.

If he is innocent, or there are other factors, then I am sure that will be brought out also.

Kel

I submit your bias is showing...

There really isn't enough of the video being shown to see what was really going on, typical of the media. We don't know what lead up to the officer tasering her. From the video, which was taken out of context, it would appear he was out of line and using excessive force but to what extent was she resisting prior to what we see in the clip? Was she fighting the officer as he tried to restrain her? How many opportunities did she have to comply? Did she continue to resist after the initial tasering showing a pattern of intentional resistance?
I think she was drunk, belligerent and intentionally resisting. It was evident that she was continuing to resist from her actions in the back seat. The claim "i was in fear for my life" doesn't fly with me one bit. She is being prompted by her lawyer and is most likely trying to milk some money out of this.
The officer on the other hand appeared, from the video clip, to be taking the "easy" way out by tasering her vise trying to restrain her. Looked like he just didn't want to get his hands dirty or put out any effort. Kind of the "why fight them when i have a nifty little taser" mentality. The line about the taser "miss firing" is BS. If that was the case then stop following her with it and pull the electrodes. Too often we have officers going over board and tasering someone at the drop of a hat and continuing to shock them until the person passes out or complies. At no point are they taking into consideration the how difficult it is for a person to lay down and follow commands when they are being electrocuted. My biggest problem with this guy is how out of shape he is, which is most likely a big reason he prefers to taser people instead of using restraint techniques, if that was the case here. I still don't understand why law enforcement groups and the military continue to allow people to continue this type of work in such poor physical condition.

The media is notorious for not giving us the whole story, so why would this incident be any different? Until the whole story comes out, meaning we get to hear the police officers side, I will not decide whether it was too extreme or not. For all we know, this woman may have threatened the police officer or attacked him in some way. The video just doesn't show enough. Like hunterkell said, the truth will come out soon enough, or it will be swept under the carpet and never heard about again (another thing the media is notorious for).

I doubt if the officer will speak on this matter. I don't recall many instances when the officers does speak out. Or maybe the reason is beause the suite is pending, dunno.

Here is the woman's version of the story.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/26/tasered.woman/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Officers are advised by counsel not to speak out. Anything an officer says can not only used againts them in a court of law, but also twisted and turned by the media or by others.

K

Actually, I do disagree.

Image IS a subjective thing and that means it tends to change as the public interprets (or re interprets it). Therefore, I am not concerned w/what the public or anyone else believes things to be.

For instance, I see on blogs in my city where there are citizens criticizing police officers for parking under a certain tree during the day. Their belief is the officer is parking there to avoid the heat (it has been well over 98 degrees day in and day out lately).

Therefore, their image of that police officer is one that he is lazy or does not wish to get out in the heat and work...

Guess what? I am that officer and that supposition on the blogs are wrong.

Here is the true story:

My PD is short by 10 officers. Therefore, we are running calls from beginning of shift to the end. When we are not running calls, we are typing reports in our vehicles using our vehicle computers...my computer's screen does not work properly and is exceedingly dim, therefore I HAVE to sit under a large tree to use the shade to block out the sun so I can type reports.

You see, image is not TRUTH or REALITY...it is a way for people to explain to themselves what they see (or think they see)...

Image is for people that are of weak character or politicians.

I care not for image; not as long as I satisfy my own personal sense of duty and responsiblity.

I have other examples that would prob be more telling, but I have to go write more reports (under that tree)...



Kel

Image is also a reflection of how one behaves and conducts themselves. How you behave and present yourself IS your image.

And like the ad says "Image IS Everything"... from parents, children, teachers, priests, sport coaches, martial artists, business people - image is everything.

Therefore, the image you project is important in how people perceive you. However, if you don't care what people think of you, then whatever image you project is immaterial.

But that doesn't mean that certain behaviors should be condoned or acceptable to others, simply because you don't care what they think.

While image may be subjective and there's no pleasing everyone, what people think should not matter if one does the "right" thing.

E,

Are you backtracking?



Kel

Nope, I'm simply saying image is important, especially one that an officer of the law projects to the general public, should be above reproach.

IOW, one's actions in the course of upholding one's duty, is subject to scrutiny, and therefore one should behave in a manner befitting one's station.

IMO, the cop in question could have done any number of things, which he didn't. As to whether his actions were justifiable, appropriate and warranted, is a matter for IA. However, public perception being what it is, I think the damage to the public image of the police, in general, is already done.

Why else would the question be asked "is this too extreme"? Especially, when this incident follows another multiple tasering of a UoF student at the Kerry forum.

We will have to agree to disagree.

The public is a mass of people that are made up of different types. Some are liberal, some are conservatives, some are so stupid they can't tie their own shoes, some are very intelligent. Some are so sheltered and live in a different world they don't understand why police officers do what they do and some are street wise.

Some are swayed by popular opinion and can make no decision for themselves without first reading a newspaper (or a forum).

One tazering incident has nothing to do with the other. That is simply a tactic that you are using in an attempt to give your argument more weight. They are unrelated, in a different area, by different L.E.O. under different circumstances.

I submit that there has been no "damage to the public opinion of the police".

People don't like getting tazed. I don't blame them. I wouldn't like it either. Some officers taze others inappropriately, but, the majority do so in proper manner (in my opinion).

Bottom line: if it was done incorrectly then the officer should be punished. If there are extenuating circumstances then he should not be punished.

Either way, he should not be "sentenced and hung" by citizens that have no idea what/why was going on that night.

The court of public opinion is for small minded people that make decisions on half the facts, media genereated sensationalism, and inner prejudices.

"Perhaps not, but in the general public's perception, to Joe and Jane Average, it's the same thing - people in a position of authority abusing that authority. Remember Rodney King, and the result of the "public's" perception of the subsequent handling of the case?"


I studied this incident in college:
The Rodney King video tape was not shown in it's entirety. It was deemed too prejudicial (and not towards the police). That happened in a different locale, at a different L.E.O. and initially the officers were found innocent. Reference the public perception, which PUBLIC are you speaking of? Did the riots happen in a large low income area? Are the one's that were rioting a representation of the "Joe and Jane" public in all of America? Were there any other riots except in this one area?

Again you are using a verbal tactic to steer the discussion towards sensationalism and pull at possible inner prejudices of the forum readership. In the current incident, both subjects are white, of opposite sex, and it happened across the country. There was no beating in the second incident and in the first one there were no Tazers used. They are unrelated.

According to your argument, if 1 australian commits a sexual battery (in America), then the image of all australians is damaged....that is ludicrous.

God forbid that that 1 australian also be a police officer and commit a crime. Then the image of 2 classes have been damaged.

"No one is doing that here. The question was asked "is this too extreme"? It is merely a device to gauge public perception. Everything said here is based on opinion, since no one (here) has the real facts (yet). So all we're discussing here is what is the general public's (i.e. our) perception. Nothing more."

We (you and I) are not discussing the, "is this too extreme?" comment by the OP. We are discussing comments that YOU (and others) have made that insinuate that what the officer did was wrong/illegal/unethical (simply off the strength of a video tape).

I have no problem with the OP's comment.

If the above statement is incorrect, please show in ANY post where I responded to the OP in anyway that was critical (as I have done to comments made by you and others that were, in my mind, ill informed)...

AGAIN (because it seems some people have a problem with their reading comprehension, either that or they choose to ignore my full posts), I have NO PROBLEM if this officer is found innocent OR guilty (once an investigation is completed).

Kel

Well, a segment of the public is still the general public. It's not the entire population of the state or the country. We're not talking about demographic segmentation of the population (which population?). Well, I'm not anyway...

As I've said before, whether the officer is exonerated or not, is a matter for IA and your judicial system. IMV, and on the strength of the video evidence, I believe he had other less extreme choices which he could have taken, but didn't. And since I fall in the same "general public" as everyone else here, IMO and perception, the use of the device was beyond the point of propriety and quite likely (IMO) unjustified. No where did I say or insinuate that it was wrong/illegal/unethical. There's a big difference between me saying that something is abhorrent (to me) and unjustified (to me), and labeling something as blatantly "wrong" or unethical (your words).

Likewise, no where have I suggested that the officer should be indicted, convicted or sentenced - those were your words, which you are attempting to put in my mouth. If anyone has a reading comprehension challenge (you insinuating that I have one), I would suggest that perhaps you need to be a little more objective regarding the entire discussion - especially given your involvement in law enforcement. (Again, no where am I suggesting that you have a vested interest in this particular officer, or the outcome of any investigation pertaining to the event).

BTW, Rodney King was not only beaten, kicked and punched, he was also tazered - twice. Let's get the facts straight. However, I don't think anyone here is really discussing the facts in evidence here. Nor should we be, as it is inappropriate, since we are not privy to all the facts, and whether those facts are in evidence or not. It's merely a canvass of "public" opinion about 1 particular event. Rodney King is merely an illustration of who the "public" might encompass and how the "public" might perceive things.

YOUR WORDS:
As I've said before, whether the officer is exonerated or not, is a matter for IA and your judicial system. IMV, and on the strength of the video evidence, I believe he had other less extreme choices which he could have taken, but didn't. And since I fall in the same "general public" as everyone else here, IMO and perception, the use of the device was beyond the point of propriety and quite likely (IMO) unjustified. No where did I say or insinuate that it was wrong/illegal/unethical. There's a big difference between me saying that something is abhorrent (to me) and unjustified (to me), and labeling something as blatantly "wrong" or unethical (your words).

Likewise, no where have I suggested that the officer should be indicted, convicted or sentenced - those were your words, which you are attempting to put in my mouth.

E,

I realize that you must be a citizen and NOT a L.E.Officer.

When a police officer is held out to have used force that was, "unjustified" <---your words...then he is being accused of violating a citizen's rights (in other words breaking the law), this violation of said person's civil rights is taken very seriously in the court system and by the L.E. community.

Therefore, when you state the officer used an amount of force that was not justified, it is tantamount to having him "sentenced and hung". So by making the above statement, you are doing EXACTLY what you are stating you are not doing....

However, it might also be that we are from different cultures and our understandings of words or groups of word ideas have subtle (yet important) differences.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree....

Kel

Gee E,

you seem to be getting very upset...when it comes to what you are discussing (and your opinions)-first you want to discuss "public opinion" and then you change it to "court of law"....it seems you are doing so to argue out of the side of your mouth (that means you are changing the argument in order to make your point seem more valid and mine less valid)...it is nice that you can admit your opinion doesnt matter tho...

I wouldn't have said your opinion doesn't matter, but, that's your choice of words not mine.

Remember, we were discussing "public opinion" and when you started using the words, "unjustified force" I pointed out that here in America, that that is a civil rights violation (and that uttering such words causes a great deal of consternation, in the general public, LEO, the press, etc etc)...again, you are switching back and forth from what you want to discuss as opposed to what "we" were discussing.

I appreciate your observation and can even respect your suggestion that I am too involved as a LEO to be objective. However, I respectfully disagree with your assertion.

But I really appreciate the fact you stated that your opinion doesn't matter....(I know, I know, but I just can't let that go without a final reference)

BTW, if you'v been studying for a number of years (criminal law), I hope you eventually achieve a college degree.

Kel

Kel,

It takes A LOT more than that to get me upset.

BUT your constant sniping and twisting of my words, is getting a little tiresome and boring. Apart from having to repeat myself, I find your arguments intellectually bereft.

The insinuation that it constitutes an accusation of a civil rights violation is preposterous - whether or not there was excessive use of force and whether that constitutes a violation of said civil rights is a matter for a trial jury to decide - if it does go to trial. My opinion on the matter is not relevant, nor is it admissible in this regard. And AFAIK, I AM still entitled to MY opinion.

The entire basis of your argument is that we should refrain from using certain words because it evokes "a great deal of consternation..."? What is that? Suppression of free speech? Have you something to hide? Because it further tarnishes the image of LEOs?

Rather than sniping and making personal digs, perhaps you could try sticking to the topic - whether the action of the cop was too extreme. That is what we're discussing here - being that this is a public forum, in the public's opinion, were the actions of the cop too extreme.

So, IMO, the public image of the police, public perception of that image, and the influence that has on public opinion are all relevant to this discussion.

Anything else outside of that is a matter for IA and the judicial system to determine. Sure we can surmise and speculate whether it was or not, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we are sentencing and executing him for it. Since any discussion on a public forum is not admissible as evidence.

As a police officer, I would have expected you to at least know the difference.

"The entire basis of your argument is that we should refrain from using certain words because it evokes "a great deal of consternation..."? What is that? Suppression of free speech? Have you something to hide? Because it further tarnishes the image of LEOs?"

EYE-rie,

Please produce evidence to support your claim? Please show where I have stated that someone should refrain from using certain words....Please show where I have tried to hide something and/or suppress anyone's words or ideas?

Maybe your reading comprehension is fine...BUT, I think you should stop agonizng over that bifocal purchase and go ahead and get them...

As I have stated (and you have not), I don't care if the officer is innocent or guilty...the evidence will bare it out...let's just give him a fair shake...

I've called Eye Express and explained to them your issues with interpretation and visualizing and they said they can help....their number is in the book...

it'd be a drive for you though...
Kel

E,

I never IMPLIED anything. That is your way of trying to discredit my statements or your paranoia is showing and you really believe that I was implying something.

Whether you like it or not (or agree with it or not), my statement reference the perception of the words, "unjustified force" is correct and dead on (at least here in the states).

I am sorry you don't agree with it.

Further, on 2 different posts I made an easy out for both us writing that we are from different cultures, with possibly a different understanding of words and ideas. It could have ended there and I would even have accepted a slight verbal rebuke and let it drop (after all it WAS your turn and fair is fair).

But, I firmly believe your arrogance and hubris would not allow you to end a discussion that was obviously beginning to digress.

Again, I don't care what the general public's (YOU) opinion of me is. I volunteered and served in the Gulf War as a firefighter, graduated top academic in my police academy, have a 4 year degreee and been a law abiding citizen and police officer for close to 18 years. I have a 2 month old son that I purposely waited til I was older in life to have so I could be a good father. I attend church (not as much as I should, I will admit). I always try and remember that my job is to help people and treat them (and that means not only the victim's of crime but also the supects too) the way I would want to be treated (admittedly something ALL police officers do not always do). I don't judge anyone and think everyone should be able to, "do their own thing" (as long as "their thing" does not hurt or injure others).

There is nothing exceptional about the record of my life, but, I am proud of my accomplishments.

I don't need to impress you (or anyone else for that matter).

Kel

Again, we shall have to agree to disagree.

eyrie,

Looking at both of your responses objectively, side by side, I have to say that you appear quite irritated with kels neutrality. That's just an observation.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I will say that as many video dashcam and jail survelillance incidents that I have reviewed, I have been guilty of jumping to conclusions that were later proven to be inaccurate. This experience (something that I am sure kel is familiar with) tends to foster a "wait until all the facts are in" perspective that some people misinterpret.