Man doesn't comply with police officer and gets taken down!

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

So how about some personal responsibility? I know I have a bad heart so I'm not going to ignore a cop 7 times while he asks me to take my hands out of my pockets.

That assumes he knows he has one. Most people don't until they have their first heart attack.. The whole point of tazers was that they were supposed to be a non-lethal way of subduing a target. If your logic worked, we wouldn't need tazers at all. standard firearms would be just fine. Shoot 'em in the leg, right? Personal responsibility is a two way street. It's a citizen's duty to obey a cop's orders when they fall within his jurisdiction.. It's also the cop's duty to be as impersonal as possible when it comes to enforcing the law. No vendettas, no profiling, no harrassment, no charge stacking. Read him his rights/issue a ticket, or let him alone. Otherwise, they're no better than the (assuming they're guilty) suspects they're trying to catch. Respect is earned, not given just because someone has a badge and title.

Originally Posted by 7960

And exactly how is the cop supposed to know the suspect has a bad heart? His job is to (a) end the situation, and (b) make sure nobody gets hurt *including* himself. If he's saying to get your hands out of your pockets and you're not doing it, IMO you're 3rd on the list of people he should care about, with 1 and 2 being him and anyone else around (not necessarily in that order).

That's right. They don't know, nor could they. From the video, the suspect looked completely harmless. He was not acting beligerent, he was not doing anything really.. just standing there with his hands half out of his pockets, probably stoned. Should he have complied? Yes. Should the cop have manhandled him like he did based on his passive defiance and/or confusion? Hard to tell from the video, but what I've seen says 'no.'

Originally Posted by 7960

Tasers do subdue, they do not knock out.

I'm sure it's not an either/or. You have to consider the relative mass of the target, what materials make up the clothes he's got on, and whether he's high on PCP or something. I think tazers ARE workable, but perhaps multiple power settings would allow for fewer unwarranted deaths. Try the low setting.. if the suspect doesn't respond, try a higher one. If the suspect is THAT dangerous that the officer doesn't have the time to fool around, he probably shouldn't be using a tazer at all.. he should have his glock in his hand and backup on the way.

[7960]

Originally Posted by R-Type

That assumes he knows he has one. Most people don't until they have their first heart attack..

So there's as much of a chance of having a heart attack from a baton beating as there is from a taser. This is moot.

The whole point of tazers was that they were supposed to be a non-lethal way of subduing a target.

Which it is. Taser may be implicated in deaths but it's never been found responsible for one.

If your logic worked, we wouldn't need tazers at all. standard firearms would be just fine. Shoot 'em in the leg, right?

Please show me where a police manual talks about shooting in the leg.

Personal responsibility is a two way street. It's a citizen's duty to obey a cop's orders when they fall within his jurisdiction.. It's also the cop's duty to be as impersonal as possible when it comes to enforcing the law. No vendettas, no profiling, no harrassment, no charge stacking. Read him his rights/issue a ticket, or let him alone. Otherwise, they're no better than the (assuming they're guilty) suspects they're trying to catch. Respect is earned, not given just because someone has a badge and title.

All of this is correct but I don't see the relevance to this thread.

That's right. They don't know, nor could they. From the video, the suspect looked completely harmless. He was not acting beligerent, he was not doing anything really.. just standing there with his hands half out of his pockets, probably stoned. Should he have complied? Yes. Should the cop have manhandled him like he did based on his passive defiance and/or confusion? Hard to tell from the video, but what I've seen says 'no.'

He already proved he was willing to fight. The cop couldn't have known what was in the guy's pockets, and the guy wasn't willing to keep his hands out of his pockets. IMO the cop did nothing wrong in making sure that the guy didn't use whatever was in his pockets as a weapon. Maybe it was nothing, maybe it was a knife...which way should the cop err?

I'm sure it's not an either/or. You have to consider the relative mass of the target, what materials make up the clothes he's got on, and whether he's high on PCP or something. I think tazers ARE workable, but perhaps multiple power settings would allow for fewer unwarranted deaths.

But there's never been a death directly related to taser....

Try the low setting.. if the suspect doesn't respond, try a higher one. If the suspect is THAT dangerous that the officer doesn't have the time to fool around, he probably shouldn't be using a tazer at all.. he should have his glock in his hand and backup on the way.

Ahh, so get rid of the taser (and obviously the baton, and definitely the mace) because those may not work on people who are *that* dangerous. Seeing as a cop can never know who is going to be *that* dangerous, he should just immediately pull his gun in every situation. Right?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Well a bad heart is a bad heart. I'm not sure you can blame a suspect for having one nor should he die because of it.. However I wonder if the voltages used in the tazers are just a bit too high? If so, it should be easy enough to adjust. All you need to do is subdue, not knock out.

Tasers don't knock you out. They tighten up your muscles and inflict pain. As soon as the taser is turned off you go back to normal almost instantly. Whereas if you get hit by a baton you can crack a bone and have long term health effects. The tazor is actually the more humane and safe route because it temporarily subdues. No long term side effects. More people have been killed by being beaten with blunt objects than tasers.

Also most districts have rules as to where you can hit someone with a baton. You can only hit them in the legs/arms,etc. This can be dangerous for the police officer if the perpetrator is much larger or is willing to take a couple hits on his thigh to get at the cop and his gun.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

So there's as much of a chance of having a heart attack from a baton beating as there is from a taser. This is moot.

I have only heard of heart attacks coming from tazers, not batons. I'm not saying there aren't any examples of such, but I'm willing to bet that tazers pose more of a heart attack risk in all but the most vicious baton attacks.

Originally Posted by 7960

Which it is. Taser may be implicated in deaths but it's never been found responsible for one.

This is just wordplay. Implied is implied. It had helped trigger the death.

Originally Posted by 7960

Please show me where a police manual talks about shooting in the leg.

I was making a point. I was not suggesting that officers do this nor that this cop should've in this situation.

Originally Posted by 7960

All of this is correct but I don't see the relevance to this thread.

You brought personal responsibility into this. Not me.

Originally Posted by 7960

He already proved he was willing to fight. The cop couldn't have known what was in the guy's pockets, and the guy wasn't willing to keep his hands out of his pockets. IMO the cop did nothing wrong in making sure that the guy didn't use whatever was in his pockets as a weapon. Maybe it was nothing, maybe it was a knife...which way should the cop err?

How did he 'prove' this? He was just standing there. Just because he's willing to fight with another citizen doesn't mean he's going to fight with an armed cop. If he meant to, he would have, I'm sure. If anything, when the cop gave his order, the suspect's facial expression was one of uncertainty, not defiance.

Which side should he err? On his safety of course. That doesn't mean he should pummel every suspect he encounters. Should I walk down the street pummeling every suspicious looking character I see just to be 'sure' I'm safe? Obviously not. In fact, such violence would be met with violence and my chances of getting the shit kicked out of me go UP. If the cop is truely concerned that a suspect is dangerous, the last thing he should do is provoke him with hand-to-hand combat. In this case, a tazer would've been less risky for the suspect than a throat attack, and the cop would not have exposed himself to a counter-attack.

Originally Posted by 7960

But there's never been a death directly related to taser....

More definitional wordplay. Tazers use high voltage. Exposure to high voltage often leads to heart attacks. This is common knowledge.

Originally Posted by 7960

Ahh, so get rid of the taser (and obviously the baton, and definitely the mace) because those may not work on people who are *that* dangerous. Seeing as a cop can never know who is going to be *that* dangerous, he should just immediately pull his gun in every situation. Right?

Huh? Where did I say get rid of any of them? The only thing I inferred was that in previous discussions I've had about tazers, few would admit they pose higher risks to the target than police depts are letting on. That's all. That's why I suggested multiple power settings as an alternative. Obviously the risk doesn't go away entirely, but it would help make the tazer a safer alternative for the suspect while still having extra juice available when it's truely needed.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Tasers don't knock you out. They tighten up your muscles and inflict pain.

I meant that the voltage is probably high enough that it would at least make some semi-concious, not that it is SOP to knock people out with them.

Originally Posted by JaJae

As soon as the taser is turned off you go back to normal almost instantly.

Any time someone is exposed to high voltage electricty there is a recovery period and the WIDE range of response to given amounts of electricity makes the risk for permanent damage higher than most people suspect.

Originally Posted by JaJae

More people have been killed by being beaten with blunt objects than tasers.

..only because batons et al have a much longer history.

Originally Posted by JaJae

Also most districts have rules as to where you can hit someone with a baton. You can only hit them in the legs/arms,etc. This can be dangerous for the police officer if the perpetrator is much larger or is willing to take a couple hits on his thigh to get at the cop and his gun.

True, hand to hand combat puts cops and suspects at greater risk. While the neurological effects of being exposed to high voltages are quite well documented, I think they are being understated by government because police depts favor them due to lower risks to officers. The latter is commendable, but people shouldn't be exposed to excessive heart attack risk either, especially if they're shot for superficial reasons such as responding to an arrogant officer's verbal 'bait' or failing to execute his instructions as quickly as he would like.

[7960]

Originally Posted by R-Type

I have only heard of heart attacks coming from tazers, not batons. I'm not saying there aren't any examples of such, but I'm willing to bet that tazers pose more of a heart attack risk in all but the most vicious baton attacks.

exertion is exertion...the heart attacks I read about that were "from tasers" all had other issues, such as extreme exertion and a previously bad heart (not caused by the taser). What I'm saying is the stuff I've read says the heart attacks were caused by the struggle with the cop, not the taser. The struggle would have happened with a taser or baton....... taser is not to blame.

This is just wordplay. Implied is implied. It had helped trigger the death.

No, see above.

How did he 'prove' this? He was just standing there. Just because he's willing to fight with another citizen doesn't mean he's going to fight with an armed cop. If he meant to, he would have, I'm sure. If anything, when the cop gave his order, the suspect's facial expression was one of uncertainty, not defiance.

The first time he was told, maybe. But the 3rd or 4th time, combined with his refusal to keep his hands out of his pockets = time to make sure he can't do anything to harm the cop, other people, or himself.

And yes, having already been in a fight means he's more likely to fight this cop and the cop needs to be prepared for it.

Which side should he err? On his safety of course. That doesn't mean he should pummel every suspect he encounters.

He didn't pummel anyone.

If the cop is truely concerned that a suspect is dangerous, the last thing he should do is provoke him with hand-to-hand combat. In this case, a tazer would've been less risky for the suspect than a throat attack, and the cop would not have exposed himself to a counter-attack.

Apparently the cop knows his skills better than you. He disarmed the situation and wasn't in harms way while doing it. You bring up "what if...?" so how about this? What if the cop was getting his taser out and the guy attacked him? Rather than the cop having the upper hand now he'd be on the defensive and would be more likely to resort to even more force

More definitional wordplay. Tazers use high voltage. Exposure to high voltage often leads to heart attacks. This is common knowledge.

........and "common knowledge" is so often wrong. Voltage doesn't cause heart attacks, amperage does. And tasers have extremely little amperage.

That's why I suggested multiple power settings as an alternative. Obviously the risk doesn't go away entirely, but it would help make the tazer a safer alternative for the suspect while still having extra juice available when it's truely needed.

But it's already got less "juice" than an electric cattle fence....the need for settings just doesn't make sense.

[AVengeance]

That guy needs to catch that cop without his gun, and go for the throat.

[7960]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

That guy needs to catch that cop without his gun, and go for the throat.

from the looks of it the cop would own him then, too

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

exertion is exertion...the heart attacks I read about that were "from tasers" all had other issues, such as extreme exertion and a previously bad heart (not caused by the taser). What I'm saying is the stuff I've read says the heart attacks were caused by the struggle with the cop, not the taser. The struggle would have happened with a taser or baton....... taser is not to blame.

Yes, exertion can trigger an attack. None of this debunks what I said. I don't know where your info comes from, but if it's some cop or military magazine, or just heresay from your officer friends, I would question it on the basis of bias. It gives officers a righteous feeling to blame the suspect's death on his 'struggle with the law' than from taser use. Anyway, it's not hard to figure that someone with a pre-existing heart condition would be especially susceptible to electric shock.

Originally Posted by 7960

The first time he was told, maybe. But the 3rd or 4th time, combined with his refusal to keep his hands out of his pockets = time to make sure he can't do anything to harm the cop, other people, or himself.

And yes, having already been in a fight means he's more likely to fight this cop and the cop needs to be prepared for it.

..except that resorting to hand-to-hand combat put his life in more jeopardy than if a taser was used. ..and if the officer felt safe enough to use a relatively slow method to subdue the suspect, he probably could've done so in a way less risky to the suspect as well.

Originally Posted by 7960

He didn't pummel anyone.

I think you need to rewatch the video. If you're just playing definitional games again, stop. It's counterproductive.. He went for the guy's throat and slammed him on the ground.

Originally Posted by 7960

Apparently the cop knows his skills better than you. He disarmed the situation and wasn't in harms way while doing it. You bring up "what if...?" so how about this? What if the cop was getting his taser out and the guy attacked him? Rather than the cop having the upper hand now he'd be on the defensive and would be more likely to resort to even more force

It would've taken him less time to pull his taser out and fire it than it would have to run up and go for the jugular like that. As I said, if that kid was even remotely with it, he could've counterattacked, dodged, or, if armed, drawn and fired in that time, causing an escalation of the situation. One low power taser blast would've accomplished the same thing at less risk to both parties.

Originally Posted by 7960

........and "common knowledge" is so often wrong. Voltage doesn't cause heart attacks, amperage does. And tasers have extremely little amperage.

Then I guess all those high voltage warnings on CRT flyback circuits, DC to DC power inverters, and other similar equipment aren't worth respecting? Those all have very high voltage circuits which route very little current. If there's enough power to make someone's whole body convulse enough to pitch him to the ground, there's enough to trigger a heart attack in him, especially if he's already susceptible. Multiple power settings would minimize this risk.

Originally Posted by 7960

But it's already got less "juice" than an electric cattle fence....the need for settings just doesn't make sense.

I have no idea where you read that, but if a cattle fence can deter a large animal through its fur and layers of skin, it is almost certainly harmful or even fatal to a human. Your comparison is moot.

[7960]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Yes, exertion can trigger an attack. None of this debunks what I said. I don't know where your info comes from, but if it's some cop or military magazine, or just heresay from your officer friends, I would question it on the basis of bias. It gives officers a righteous feeling to blame the suspect's death on his 'struggle with the law' than from taser use. Anyway, it's not hard to figure that someone with a pre-existing heart condition would be especially susceptible to electric shock.

Just like he'd be susceptible to being subdued any other way.

..except that resorting to hand-to-hand combat put his life in more jeopardy than if a taser was used. ..and if the officer felt safe enough to use a relatively slow method to subdue the suspect, he probably could've done so in a way less risky to the suspect as well.

Getting his taser would have delayed his actions/reactions. How does he know what the guy would do while he was going for his taser. Again, in that situation, it's just as likely to me that the cop would have been leaving himself vulnerable if he reached for his taser.

I think you need to rewatch the video. If you're just playing definitional games again, stop. It's counterproductive.. He went for the guy's throat and slammed him on the ground.

I'm not playing word games and never have. The guy was not pummeled.

It would've taken him less time to pull his taser out and fire it than it would have to run up and go for the jugular like that.

Nope, see comment above.

As I said, if that kid was even remotely with it, he could've counterattacked, dodged, or, if armed, drawn and fired in that time, causing an escalation of the situation. One low power taser blast would've accomplished the same thing at less risk to both parties.

It didn't seem like the cop was in much danger to me.

Then I guess all those high voltage warnings on CRT flyback circuits, DC to DC power inverters, and other similar equipment aren't worth respecting? Those all have very high voltage circuits which route very little current. If there's enough power to make someone's whole body convulse enough to pitch him to the ground, there's enough to trigger a heart attack in him, especially if he's already susceptible. Multiple power settings would minimize this risk.

So there's less risk if he puts it on low and tasers the guy and it's not enough, so now he's got to stop, change a setting, and hit him with it again? Then what? If that isn't enough he's got to stop, change the setting *again* and then try again? Did you think that through before posting it?

But anyway, here's fact:

ISN’T HIGH VOLTAGE LETHAL?

High voltage, in itself, is not dangerous. One can receive a 25,000-Volt shock of static electricity from a doorknob on a dry day without harm. The physiological effect of electrical shock is determined by: the current, its duration, and the power source that produces the shock. The typical household current of 110 Volts is dangerous because it can pump many amperes of current throughout the body indefinitely. By contrast, the ADVANCED TASER power supply consists of 8 AA hi-output alkaline 1.5-Volt batteries capable of supplying 26 Watts of electrical power for a few seconds.

It's not some electrocution killing machine.

I have no idea where you read that, but if a cattle fence can deter a large animal through its fur and layers of skin, it is almost certainly harmful or even fatal to a human. Your comparison is moot.

I got it from here

DOES THE TASER AFFECT THE HEART OR A CARDIAC PACEMAKER?

The ADVANCED TASER’s output is well below the level established as "safe" by the federal government in approving such devices as the electrified cattle fence. In a medical study, Dr. Robert Stratbucker tested the M26 at the University of Missouri and confirmed that the T-Wave does not interrupt the heartbeat or damage a pacemaker.

Taser Information from Taser International

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by 7960

his taser would have delayed his actions/reactions. How does he know what the guy would do while he was going for his taser. Again, in that situation, it's just as likely to me that the cop would have been leaving himself vulnerable if he reached for his taser.

It still would've taken far less time to draw, aim, and fire the taser, than trying some karate move which left him wide open for a counterattack. Anyway, the cop attacked first.. not the suspect.

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm not playing word games and never have. The guy was not pummeled.

you know perfectly well what I meant, which is why I mentioned 'word games'. what was it then? a slap in the face?

Originally Posted by 7960

It didn't seem like the cop was in much danger to me.

You were talking what-ifs before to justify the amount of force he applied to the suspect. Now you're saying he wasn't in much danger? If he wasn't in much danger, what justified his rather aggressive choice of subjection? Surely, a "get the hell out of here" command would've been all that was necessary to diffuse the situation, but he had to pick an ego fight to show off for the camera.

Originally Posted by 7960

So there's less risk if he puts it on low and tasers the guy and it's not enough, so now he's got to stop, change a setting, and hit him with it again? Then what? If that isn't enough he's got to stop, change the setting *again* and then try again? Did you think that through before posting it?

I'm sure something much more rational could be done. how about a pressure sensitive trigger? or conveniently placed buttons? it takes time to switch off the safety on a firearm too, so should those also be removed? I know, lets just allow officers to shoot their 9mms on sight for every situation and ask questions later.. That ensures the best 'balance' right?


Here's some more fact:
eLCOSH : Electrical Safety: Safety & Health for Electrical Trades (Student Manual) - Section 2

According to your link, the taser outputs 162mA@26W.. that's ~160V which puts the taser's output in the range of risky voltages/currents. Note the "Effects of Electrical Current* on the Body" chart that shows 150mA arresting breathing and causing shock. Death is possible. Also note:

You stop breathing for a period of time. People have stopped breathing when shocked with currents from voltages as low as 49 volts. Usually, it takes about 30 mA of current to cause respiratory paralysis.

Currents greater than 75 mA cause ventricular fibrillation (very rapid, ineffective heartbeat). This condition will cause death within a few minutes unless a special device called a defibrillator is used to save the victim.

This would be especially true of a target with a heart condition, even with only a half second exposure. The probes from the taser pierce the skin, dropping the resistance significantly and making it even more likely the target gets that full 160mA (assuming the unit is actually current limited like the docs say).

here's another link which shows a similar chart:
Electrical Safety

[phreak]

what song is playing? kinda sounds like breaking benjamins....

[Thomas Crown]

To those talking smack about the cop in this video and cops in general, NEVER dial 911. EVER.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

To those talking smack about the cop in this video and cops in general, NEVER dial 911. EVER.

because the police should have free reign over citizens ?

[Thomas Crown]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

because the police should have free reign over citizens ?

I did not say nor insinuate that. But they should be respected. There are prick cops who abuse their power and position, but that is not all or even most of them. People who apply some of the comments being made in this thread to all cops should stick to their principles and never dial 911 since they are likely to be victims of police brutality.