UCLA Student Tased: Justifiable?

It just goes to the fact that the police are the element of our society who go out and lay hands on people in the name of the law. Part of their repertoire is inflicting pain in order to gain compliance from the unwilling. You comply, you don't get pain inflicted. It's not gratuitious, it's cause and effect.
Click to expand...

Except that I see the use of pain as a reasonable means to and end, not an end in and of itself. You shouldn't get tased for noncompliance per se, you should get tased as a means of getting you out the door. As soon as it becomes obvious that tasing you isn't getting you out the door, other means should be used that will.

The police in this instance had one mission: to get him out the door, so the judicial system can deal with him. It became obvious fairly quickly that the taser was not going to get this done. At which point, as I've asserted before, the use of the taser was simply a punishment for noncompliance...and the police are not supposed to be in the punishment business.
 
I don't think (this is conjecture on my part, but informed conjecture) that the officers were specifically thinking "he's not walking on his own, and he's pissing me off! I'm going to taze him!"

More likely, the officer was thinking "Maybe if I taze him enough, he'll stand up/walk out/do what I'm asking"

That being said, I again state that they should have just picked the guy up and carried him out.
 
Kirin, in the instant case, it doesn't matter at all if there are federal standards, state standards or even some form of local (county/city) standards. There was a standard wrote up and in use by the UCPD. That is what they went by, presumably.
Click to expand...

Yes thats how it is with all these organizations.

But, these policies are inconsistent which is why there needs to be federal mandate that standardizes the use of Tasers.

Here are just a few things that need to be considered (some taser policies do but most dont):
  1. What areas of body are off limits to tazing? (ie. neck, head, pelvis, spine, hand etc?)
  2. How long do you apply the taser shock? (ie. 2 sec, 5 sec, 10 sec, 20 sec, etc?)
  3. How often do you apply the taser? (once, twice, three times, ten times?)
  4. How long of an interval do you wait before tasing again? (10 sec, 60 sec, 2 min, never ?)
  5. What do you do if the person is drunk or on drugs? (tase, dont tase etc?)
  6. What is the minimum age to taser someone? (1 year old, 4 year old, 8 year old?)
  7. What is the oldest age to taser someone? (60 year old, 80 year old, 100 year old?)
  8. Do you taser someone pregnant?
  9. Do you taser someone with a heart condition?
  10. Do you taser someone with disabilities? (ie. the guy in the wheel chair)
  11. Do you taser someone when there are several officers at the scene?
  12. Do you taser someone while they are handcuffed?
  13. Do you taser someone just for mouthing off?


These are serious questions that very few taser policies cover.

This is why pregnant women have been tasered, why a man in a wheel chair has been tasered, why hundreds of eldery (80 or older) have been tasered, why children as young as 5 years old have been tasered, why people handcuffed have been tasered, why one man was tasered 9 times (by the way he died), why most taser deaths involved people on drugs or with heart conditions, why a police officer is paralyzed from being tasered during training due to prong hitting spinal cord, why people have been tasered for talking back to a cop, etc. etc.

Some police agencies have had to change their policies as a result of civil lawsuits due to wrongful death after the application of a taser.

These policies include:
  1. No head, neck, spine, groin, arm, knee or foot areas should be aimed at with taser.
  2. Pregnant women should not be tasered
  3. Children under 14 years old should not be tasered unless to protect life.
  4. Handicapted persons should not be tasered if their handicapt limits their ability to move.
  5. Persons age 79 or older should not be tasered unless to save a life.
  6. After tasering a person, the police officer must determine if the suspect is still breathing and alert before applying the taser shock a second time.
  7. Police officer cant taser someone more than 3 times in 1 minute.
  8. Officer cannot taser someone more than 5 times.
  9. Officer cannot apply more than a 5 second shock per an interval.
  10. Officer should not apply taser to a person who indicates they have a medical condition.
  11. Taser prongs should be removed by medical professional.
  12. Victim should be reviewed by medical personal after being tasered.
  13. Persons handcuffed should not be tasered.
  14. Persons fleeing a crime should not be tasered.
  15. Taser should only be used as a defensive weapon.
  16. Taser should be used as a last resort option, prior to using firearm.
  17. Persons showing passive resistence should not be tasered.
  18. etc. etc. etc.

These are the sorts of things police departments, after losing millions in civil lawsuits, have added to their taser policies.

One day america will wake up and establish a standard policy that sets out minimum standards for all police departments to follow.
 
kirin said:
But, these policies are inconsistent which is why there needs to be federal mandate that standardizes the use of Tasers.
Click to expand...
I am against giving the feds more power. That essentially means that I am against federal mandates, period.

As you stated later, many of the areas of concern, have been addressed by those agencies when called to task by the Courts.

So why do you think that a "one size fits all" mandate would be any better? They will still be subject to civil action, just as the individual jurisdictions are now. The only difference being that action on the federal level would impact everyone... Whether there is a problem with a local jurisdiction or not.
 
I am against giving the feds more power.
Click to expand...
I'm not where such power protects or expands individual liberty.

Certain bad-seed police have abused tasers creating a problem for everyone.
The taser was intended to be an alternative to more dangerous means of incapacitation, not a hi-tech overseer's whip.

The taser should not be used where the officer's safety is not threatened. I don't think that anybody here can reasonably claim that this kid (obnoxious though he may be) posed a threat to anybody. The attitude displayed (it puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again) is the real problem here.
 
Recently they introduced tasers to the Wichita , KS police department. In the first 12 months they used their new toy nearly a thousand times. (Wichita isn't a particularly large city). I know the spouses of two of Wichita's finest. They give 'the latest taser reports' to me at the office whenever one of their hubbies shocks someone. In somecases they have related stories of their husbands using tasers 'when someone doesn't comply quickly enough to satisfy them - especially if they (the policeman) is having a bad day.' They really seem to enjoy using them.

The victims are the perps and the public. The perps get the juice and we (the public) pay the lawsuits in our taxes.

Maybe the tasers should come with a video and audio feed that comes on when they are lifted from their hoslter.

Just to make the users 'protect and serve.'
 
Everybody must get Tazed.

Well, they'll Taze ya when you're trying to be so good,
They'll Taze ya just a-like they said they would.
They'll Taze ya when you're tryin' to go home.
Then they'll Taze ya when you're there all alone.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get Tazed.

Well, they'll Taze ya when you're walkin' 'long the street.
They'll Taze ya when you're tryin' to keep your seat.
They'll Taze ya when you're walkin' on the floor.
They'll Taze ya when you're walkin' to the door.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get Tazed.

They'll Taze ya when you're at the breakfast table.
They'll Taze ya when you are young and able.
They'll Taze ya when you're tryin' to make a buck.
They'll Taze ya and then they'll say, "good luck."
Tell ya what, I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get Tazed.

Well, they'll Taze you and say that it's the end.
Then they'll Taze you and then they'll come back again.
They'll Taze you when you're riding in your car.
They'll Taze you when you're playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get Tazed.

Well, they'll Taze you when you walk all alone.
They'll Taze you when you are walking home.
They'll Taze you and then say you are brave.
They'll Taze you when you are set down in your grave.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get Tazed.


:D :D
 
The Merrimack, NH PD has had Tasers for about three or four years, and they've used them twice that I've heard of. Once on a highly combative drunk, and another during a domestic, if I'm remembering correctly. Our town's about 30,000 people.
 
The Merrimack, NH PD has had Tasers for about three or four years, and they've used them twice that I've heard of. Once on a highly combative drunk, and another during a domestic, if I'm remembering correctly. Our town's about 30,000 people.
Click to expand...

Is this only counting the times the tasers were fired, or uses of drive-stun as well? Either way it sounds like your officers are better trained, or simply not a big of jerks, as officers in other areas. It also suggests that there is a place for tasers in law enforcement, if properly used.
 
As I understood it from the lieutenant, that was the only time they were used at all, no mention of any drive-stun use.

I think the "no jerks" theory is the most likely - every one of the Merrimack PD officers right up to the chief has been a stand-up guy. Chief Mulligan was on his way home from the grocery store and stopped to make sure everything was okay before the black & white showed up, after hearing the call on his radio when I'd hit a deer. And Captain Doyle can quote Peel's Nine Principles of Policing, in fact, and Peel's observation that "the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it" is illustrated by the fact that ride-alongs in Merrimack are pretty boring.
 
As you stated later, many of the areas of concern, have been addressed by those agencies when called to task by the Courts.

So why do you think that a "one size fits all" mandate would be any better? They will still be subject to civil action, just as the individual jurisdictions are now. The only difference being that action on the federal level would impact everyone... Whether there is a problem with a local jurisdiction or not.
Click to expand...


Well its a matter of Ethics.

If something is wrong, then its wrong. Why should other US Citizens have to go through an intense legal battle over their civil rights on a court by court basis when its been proven wrong in other states.

Your point of view is the same point of view that large corporations, police departmnets and any other institution where unethical behavior or abuse of power occurs.

Why? Because it gives them plenty of opportunities to win.

How? There are about 33k police departments in the United States (city/town) and an unnumbered amount of federal and state law enforcement agencies and private police services (ie. campus police etc). By having to challenge all these agencies on a state-by-state or case-by-case basis, it means they can all continue with their practices until a lawsuit occurs. But, it doesnt just stop there, lawsuits require money and most citizens dont have money to file or support a lawsuit or to compete with city attorneys with large budgets. And even if the citizen could afford the lawsuit, then they become a target like many whistle blowers, where history of their background becomes public and it often leads to them dropping the lawsuit.

There was an article i read written by an attorney about a week ago, but i cant remember more about it. But, in his article he basically explains that he works for a large law firm and for obvious reasons he must write this blog anonymously to avoid loosing his job. But, he goes on to say that all lawyers are unethical by nature. And he goes on to provide reasons why and examples of how he has had to be unethical in order to achieve success.

The fact is that once someone files a lawsuit against a city, dirt gets dugged up and pitched to the press!

Look at how many women have been raped by celebrities and their background life is made public. No woman who has been raped should go through that. Unfortunately, attorneys use this to their advantage and for this reason statistics still show that a high number of rapes, especially those involving celebs, go unreported.

But, here is a better example.

Earlier this year, an Senior Airman by the name of Elio Carrion, who is part of the US Air Force's military police unit, was shot by San Bernardino Deputy Ivory Webb.

This event was video taped by a resident named Jose Valdez. The video tape showed the deputy instructing Carrion to "get up", Carrion then tells the deputy "Ok, im gonna get up" and as Carrion stands up, the officer shoots Carrion several times and says "No, you dont get up" as other bystanders say in horror "But, you told him to get up".

The Public Relations person for this sheriffs office told news reporters the facts. But, those facts were grossly distorted from what actually happened, even though police had a copy of Valdez' video. So Jose Valdez, who had made a copy of his video tape, did the right thing and turned his video over to the local news station who aired the story just after the Sheriffs spokeman held a press conference. Obviously at that point everyone watching the news saw the sheriff statement was BS.

So what happened to this good samaritan named Jose Valdez?

Well for some reason, immigration got wind that Valdez was not a US citizen and they decided to do a background check on him. After all you cant be too sure these days with witnesses and good samaritans. And they found he had a warrant back in florida. So shortly after releasing his video tape, which showed the officer in the wrong and showed police statements to the press were grossly incorrect, Valdez was arrested and sent to Florida where he sat in jail during the airing of the story.

Anyways, just goes to show how facts can be misrepresented and fortunately we have video these days!
 
Some interesting case law/legal info...

involving Tasers, excerpted from Taser's own "Memorandum of Law." Redacted to meet size restrictions-

Lifton v. City of Vacaville, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16286 (9th Cir. 2003)
The appellate court held that the officers' decisions to surround the individual, shout at him, and use a Taser to disable him were not violations of clearly established Fourth Amendment law governing excessive force.

Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1988)
The appellate court held that the use of Taser guns was not cruel and unusual punishment and a policy of allowing use of Taser guns on an inmate who refuses to submit to a strip search does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The court noted that Nevada's Department of Prison authorities believe the Taser is the preferred method for controlling prisoners because it is the "least confrontational" when compared to the use of physical restraint, billy clubs, mace, or stun guns. By disabling the inmate, it prevents further violence. The court held that the Taser gun is not per se unconstitutional

Jolivet v. Cook, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950 (10th Cir. 1995)
The appellate court upheld the holding of the district court which concluded that the correctional officers used taser weapons in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline after the inmate refused orders to be handcuffed before being moved from his cell.

Walker v. Sumner, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26517 (9th Cir 1993)
The court affirmed Michenfelder v. Sumner, cited above, where the court held that the threatened use of a taser to enforce compliance with a search had a reasonable security purpose and was not unconstitutional.

Caldwell v. Moore, 968 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1992)
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment and held that defendant correction officers’ use of a taser did not violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity, because the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, and not maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The lack of a policy regulating the use of stun guns did not render stun guns use per se unconstitutional; and as the use of a taser was held permissible, it was not unreasonable for defendants to have concluded that the use of the stun gun was necessary to avoid using even greater force. Further there was no deliberate indifference as plaintiff did not suffer a serious deprivation because his injuries were not serious enough to require immediate medical attention, and he produced no evidence that defendants acted with a culpable state of mind.

Hernandez v. Terhume, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18080 (ND Cal. 2000)
The district court held that taser guns may be reasonably used to quell disorders and to compel obedience, but they cannot be used to punish a prisoner.

Hinton v. City of Elwood (‘93, KS)
The appellate court held that the use of a stun gun to subdue man who was resisting arrest by kicking and biting was an appropriate use of force.

Drummer v. Luttrell, 75 F. Supp. 2d 796 (WD Tenn. 1999)
The court held that prison officials are entitled to use physical force, including devices such as tasers, to compel obedience by inmates.

Bennett v. Cambra, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1584 (N.D. Cal 1997)
The court held that it is not unreasonable for the jail officials to conclude that the use of a stun gun is less dangerous for all involved than a hand to hand confrontation. See also Dennis v. Thurman, 959 F. Supp. 1253 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Munoz v. California Dep't of Corrections, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17759 (C.D. Cal 1996); Jackson v. Carl, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11617 (N.D. Cal. 1991); and Caldwell v. Moore, 968 F. 2nd 595 (6th Cif. 1992)

Alford v. Osei-Kwasi, 203 Ga. App. 716, 721, 418 S.E.2d 79 (1992), cert. denied, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 494 (June 10, 1992).
The court held that a sheriff's deputy was acting within his discretionary authority when he used a Taser stun-gun on an unruly prison inmate. The deputy stated he used the TASER to minimize possible injuries to all concerned, including Alford and her unborn child.

Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Dep't, 839 F. Supp. 508 (W.D Mich. 1993)
The court affirmed the Russo v. Cincinnati decisions cited above which held that the taser, which was deployed in an effort to obviate the need for lethal force, did not violate clearly established law.

Parker v. Asher, 701 F. Supp. 192 (Nev. 1988)
The court affirmed Michenfelder v. Sumner, cited above, where the Ninth Circuit held that Taser guns are not per se unconstitutional as long as they are "used to enforce compliance with [an order] that had a reasonable security purpose. The legitimate intended result of a shooting is incapacitation of a dangerous person, not the infliction of pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top