"Don't Tase Me, Bro" Student Speaks Out

[Axxman]

Don't you see the irony of government employees "paying taxes"? It just means that they are getting less pay. My point was that they "work" for the people, and all the equipment that they have (including tasers - which Amnesty International has defined as "instruments of torture" and their very livelihoods are provided by the people. If the people were to withdraw their taxes, civil servants would not be able to exist, and the civil servants would have nothing to pay their taxes with or withdraw. So therefore, they are totally reliant on the goodwill of the people, and to abuse them if to "bite the hand that feeds them".

You do make some interesting observations. Unfortunately, I think our ideologies are so far apart we may never see eye to eye. Nevertheless I am enjoying this convo quite a bit. People don't pay taxes in order to provide me with a job. People pay taxes because there are certain things that they require in order to have a civil society. I am not reliant on the "goodwill" of the people...Unfortunately, I am reliant on the willingness of people to constantly break the law. I have often said I would gladly give up my job to live in a crime free society. Its an impossible scenario, but it is true. Society needs law enfocement in the same way they need schools, roads, etc. thats why they pay taxes.

However, this is getting away from the issue. To quote you: "As far as what you call "nastiness"...I never said they ridicule them" I would think that by your description, the word "ridicule" is pretty appropriate.

And: "I find it ironic that you are fine when officers 'appear' to ridicule their own...but you take offense if they ridicule you." Now I never said it was fine when officers appear to ridicule their own. I think it is totally inappropriate to ridicule anybody, certainly not one of their own either.

I'm glad that we can agree that nobody (including officers) need ridicule. The word ridicule is the same as "mockery" or to "make a fool of." I clearly said they chuckled after she left. the intent isn't to embarrass a person...that would not result in a de-escalation of the conflict, and I'm pretty sure I've been adamant that the ultimate goal is de-escalation. The problem is that most people don't understand the job, the mentality, or the resposibilities of police officers and most of what they do know is taken from TV shows. In my job I quite often have people get VERY angry at me because they haven't been read their Miranda Rights, so they demand to be released. I've actually been in physical altercations with people who were angry because they were arrested without hearing Miranda. Its my job to attempt to de-escalate that situation. Once I have explained things to them and the situation is resolved I can assure you that its not uncommon for me to have a good chuckle with myself or co-workers about how out of touch people are with reality...and with me, my job, and my responsibilities. Its kind of a stress reducer when you can just laugh stuff off.

Quote: "they are not making fun of you, they simply understand and know things that you simply don't." That sounds a bit patronising, don't you reckon? In this particular case what did the officer know that the woman who owned the car didn't?

Well, unfortunately, we don't have enough info to really know what happened or what was said. I am QUITE certain that AnotherTravellers daughter was given an explanation and they chose not to share that info with us. They instead were far more focused on the idea that some officers were empathetic to their situation (de-escalating) while the offending officer refused to back down (maintaining his authority.) What we do know is that the Police are responsible for certain things including the safety of the public. There are certain places that a car can simply not be left unattended, for any reason, for public safety reasons. Without knowing what the officer said to them its quite impossible to know. Thats why I limited my remarks to the events at the station...I've seen that scenario played out a hundred different times, for a hundred different reasons.

And: "SO when irresponsible mother with two babies goes out (and doesn't fill up her tank so that she has to walk home with them) gets all cranky, they have a good chuckle about it. Why do they have a chuckle? Because they know what she doesn't and its the best way to deal with irresponsible/irrational people who like to blame their mistakes on other people". Anothertraveller didn't say that her daughter was irresponsible or irrational! What made you think that? And she didn't say that her daughter blamed "other people" for her car being towed away. However, she most certainly should have blamed the officer who was responsible for the car being towed away, because she had left a note explaining the circumstances. The question is: Was the officer able to read and understand it? Did he not believe that it was true that the driver had run out of petrol and thought that she had maliciously left the car where it was to cause trouble and just written the note to confuse whoever was puzzled by it? Can "law enforcement" officers use common sense? Are they allowed to use common sense and think for themselves, or do they have to blindly follow the "law" to the letter? Or do you think it was a case of "this person is obviously in a dilemma, so I will just use the power vested in me by the state to make things worse for her"?

A few good things here. You are asking the right questions. First, if you are going out with two babies it is irresponsible to run out of gas. I cannot see ANY scenario where it becomes acceptable to have to walk several blocks with two babies because you couldn't stop for a minute to insure their safety. To then turn around and act as though its the Police's fault is casting blame where it doesn't belong. It is an undeniable fact that she could have avoided all of this by being more responsible with her car. As far as the note...everybody claims to leave a note. Fair or not, at some point you kinda just expect to hear that one, and it doesn't really matter. How long should the police leave the car there to be stolen, or hit by another car? Its a liability issue. If the police see the car abandoned it becomes their responsibility...what they decide to do with that responsibility is completely their decision. If another motorist runs into a car on the side of the road that the police left there...its a liability issue. If the car gets stolen...its a liability issue. As far as "common sense" I suppose that is a matter of perspective...lol. To the daughter it made common sense to let her car run out of gas, and caus eall this in the first place. To the police officer it made common sense to tow the car rather than do the necessary paperwork for an abandoned vehicle, stolen vehicle, or accident reports. Again, we were not told what the officer said. We were only told that the fellow officers showed empathy (which is what they are trained to do.) I can't help but think (because of my perspective admittedly) that the reason we were not told why the officer did what he did is because AT didn't like the answer. If the Officer gave a completely lame reason...I am quite certain AT would have told us what it was to bolster the argument.

You were the one who mentioned the "good cop, bad cop routine" and I asked you what it is supposed to achieve? I guess you did answer it in a way, and I take the answer to be "to make the members of the public think that some of us are 'on their side' when we're really not! So we always win."

Lastly, quote: "the officer who is being complained against MUST remain steadfast in defending his decision making skills or he will lose credibility". In other words: "Even if you are at fault don't ever admit it, maintain your righteousness to the bitter end!"

The reason for the "routine" is to de-escalate the situation. People tend to calm down ALOT when they find a compassionate ear. That doesn't mean that the compassionate ear has to agree with you. Its just basic human nature. People like to 'think' they are friends of the police...and most of the time they are...until they are on the wrong side of them. Now AT's daughter wasn't on the "wrong side" of the Police, but she was clearly angry and upset. The first order of business is to calm her down and help her realize that the Police are not her enemy...but may even be her ally. That was CLEARLY accomplished based on AT's post.

Lastly...If an officer is at fault...admit it. Not to the public, but to your superiors. If an Officer finds himself in the position of apologizing to the public alot...he will have NO credibility and needs a different job. An officer represents the Dept..not himself. If an officer messes up (and it can happen) it is the Depts responsibility to make that determination and to make it right. Obviously, we are discussing major things (error in judgement)...not minor errors (mispronouncing a name.)

Amnesty International makes alot of out outrageous statements. Their view of Tasers in shortisighted and wrong.

[Axxman]

My car ran out of gas once about a year ago in Los Angeles on the freeway, I used one of the call boxes on the freeway to report that I would get picked up by a friend and come back later that evening with gas and take it home. My car was moved wayyyy off the side of the road near the trees in the dirt. The lady on the call box even did a 3 way call for me to have my friend come get me from church. Later, 3 of my Christian friends brought me to my car's site only it was nowhere to be found. It was taken to an impound lot. I never got my car back because I didn't have the $300 to get it out. Last I heard, it was sold to a public auction. I had no idea you could report this sort of thing or I'd have a car right now. Thanks!

JamiLea,

Most states have laws that REQUIRE a vehicle to be towed if it is abandoned on the freeway (and yes, that includes the side of the freeway.) Its unfortunate that you lost your car, but in this case its not really a grievable issue. The weird thing is this....the call boxes are typically monitored by the Los Angeles County FSP program. If you had stayed with your car, chances are the FSP would have brought you some gas. However...if the car is abandoned (or they can't get it started within 10 minutes) they will tow it to safety.

[LossForWords]

There are "good" cops and there are "bad" cops.

Just as there are "good" pastors and "bad" pastors.

It seems a bit over the top to look at a situation here and there and come to the conclusion that all civil service people are not responsible citizens and abuse their authority. Though that may happen sometime, it is not always the case.

In the case of the student that was tased, he resisted arrest repeatedly and was even trying to fight the officers. He was not tased because he said something that some one else didn't like. He was tased because he was out of control and threatening to the officers, the public, and himself. Wouldn't it just seem a better option to quit resisting and fighting and instead go down to the station and get things figured out in the appropriate manner. The student ended up making a fool of himself and getting people angry with officers who were just doing their job...serving and protecting.

[buckthesystem]

Hi Buck,

Do you suppose officers should be shot so they can see what it feels like before being given a gun too?

That's hardly the same thing Jamilea.

I believe that it is dishonest to impose something on somebody that you are not prepared to undergo yourself. There is widespread abuse of "tasers" by police worldwide, we hear of it all the time. Did you see the recent thread where a guy in UK was in a diabetic coma and was "tased" allegedly because the policeman involved "thought he was a suicide bomber"? (Sure, somebody who is unconscious can really be a threat to society - not!) In the victim's own words "they used me for target practise".

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=73163

I think generally if a policeman knew what it was like to be "tased" (not just once, but two, three even four times, just like policemen do to some of their victims) they just might have a bit of empathy for their "target", knowing what it is like to be deliberately electrocuted.

Recently I have read of young children being tasered, a case of a man holding his young child being tasered and there have been numerous deaths reported, apparently due to being tasered.

So as so many policemen seem to think the taser is a "safe" alternative to the handgun, then they should find out firsthand just how "safe" it really is.

[Axxman]

That's hardly the same thing Jamilea.

I believe that it is dishonest to impose something on somebody that you are not prepared to undergo yourself. There is widespread abuse of "tasers" by police worldwide, we hear of it all the time. Did you see the recent thread where a guy in UK was in a diabetic coma and was "tased" allegedly because the policeman involved "thought he was a suicide bomber"? (Sure, somebody who is unconscious can really be a threat to society - not!) In the victim's own words "they used me for target practise".

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=73163

I think generally if a policeman knew what it was like to be "tased" (not just once, but two, three even four times, just like policemen do to some of their victims) they just might have a bit of empathy for their "target", knowing what it is like to be deliberately electrocuted.

Recently I have read of young children being tasered, a case of a man holding his young child being tasered and there have been numerous deaths reported, apparently due to being tasered.

So as so many policemen seem to think the taser is a "safe" alternative to the handgun, then they should find out firsthand just how "safe" it really is.

The reason the police are NOT required to be tasered anymore is because there is ZERO evidence that being tased affected the decision of using a taser. If there was ANY evidence that tasing officers made them better decision makers...they would have continued the practice.

I have felt the taser several times...and it is STILL my favorite use of force technique...even over pepper spray. I've been pepper sprayed several times too. I've even voluntarily allowed myself to be hit with a 50,000 volt riot shield...just for the fun of it. Trust me...feeling the effects of these various uses of force have NO EFFECT on whether or not I will use them on somebody whenever I see fit.

Lastly...the diabetic guy was tased...and he lived with NO effects from the taser. In fact, the guy didn't even know he's been tased until somebody told him. As the man said...He's glad he was tased instead of shot. Another life saved because of the taser!!!

[buckthesystem]

The reason the police are NOT required to be tasered anymore is because there is ZERO evidence that being tased affected the decision of using a taser. If there was ANY evidence that tasing officers made them better decision makers...they would have continued the practice.

BTS says: As I said before, this is hardly a good "reason". In fact it sounds so "politician-speak-make-up-the-silliest-"answer"-to-the-question-possible-and-it-might-confuse-the-issue" that is could be straight out of a government press release. It totally avoids the real reason that policemen used to have to be tasered themselves - which is, as I said before also, so that they might feel some empathy for their victims if they know what it is like to be deliberately electrocuted, themselves. And they might not be so keen to go round "zapping" without thinking (victims like young children, people holding babies, people in a coma etc.)

Lastly...the diabetic guy was tased...and he lived with NO effects from the taser. In fact, the guy didn't even know he's been tased until somebody told him. As the man said...He's glad he was tased instead of shot. Another life saved because of the taser!!!

This bloke did most certainly not live with no effects from the taser. The article about it says: "He was on anti-depressants after the incident and suffered from back pain for two weeks". I'm sorry but I find it utterly amazing that you claim "another life saved because of the taser", the facts are that the sheer idiocy of tasering someone in a coma who was wearing a special necklace to alert to his condition and then handcuffing him and throwing him in the back of a police van, is breathtaking! It is incredible that he did not die as a result. His words with regard to being "glad" were "I suppose I should be glad they decided to use the Taser." This is obviously sarcasm. Not to be taken that he really was "glad", he actually meant "it could have been worse, I could have been murdered instead of merely electrocuted".

However, my point was that what is missing here is accountability! I find it totally incomprehensible that the officers involved were not prosecuted and are, presumably, back "on the job" so that they can do this sort of thing all over again. And by their keepers saying they should not be prosecuted, they are saying that they did nothing wrong. Gee if that is "nothing wrong", I'd hate to see what they do call "something wrong".

[kari21]

167 cases of death in 7 yrs is pretty negligible.

Not to their families...

[Axxman]

167 cases of death in 7 yrs is pretty negligible.

Not to their families...

More kids will die from "accidental" gun shots wounds this month than that 7 yr total. Also, lets not forget that of those 167 cases the Taser was not specifically identified as the cause of death. I pointed this out in my previous post.

Using this "fuzzy" total of 167 deaths in which a taser was involved we get 24 deaths a year. Considering that Taser's are used hundreds of thousands of times a year...that would put Tasers WAY, WAY, Down near the bottom of the "causes of death" list.

In other words your more likely to get hit by lightening. Negligible...

[kari21]

167 cases of death in 7 yrs is pretty negligible.

Not to their families...

More kids will die from "accidental" gun shots wounds this month than that 7 yr total. Also, lets not forget that of those 167 cases the Taser was not specifically identified as the cause of death.

My point being, not one of those tazer deaths was insignificant to their loved ones.

[Axxman]

My point being, not one of those tazer deaths was insignificant to their loved ones.

My point being, they were not "taser deaths."

The deaths are not insignificant...but the number of them is, in terms of ALL the different things we could die from. The chances of dying from a taser is negligible. By only replying to one small portion of everything I wrote you made it seem as though I was saying the deaths were insignificant...and that isn't true.