[quote]WASHINGTON — Malaika Brooks was seven months pregnant when a Seattle police officer stunned her with a Taser. Hawaii resident Jayzel Mattos was at home when she, too, got zapped by police.
Now, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider for the first time police use of Tasers. With more than 11,000 agencies nationwide arming officers with the stun guns, the time may be getting ripe for settling questions about when electrical force becomes excessive.
"One could argue that the use of painful, permanently scarring weaponry on nonthreatening individuals, who were not trying to escape, should have been known to be excessive by any informed police officer," Appellate Judge Mary Schroeder noted, before cautioning that "there is no good case law" to clarify decision-making. Schroeder and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confronted the complicated Taser questions last year. The majority's conclusion that stunning a nonviolent individual could be considered excessive force will be reviewed by Supreme Court justices in a private conference this month.
Already, the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association is urging the high court to take up the Taser cases. Some appellate judges, too, are warning about dire consequences if Taser use is restricted. "My colleagues cast doubt on an effective alternative to more dangerous police techniques, and the resulting uncertainty will lead to more, worse injuries," 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski cautioned. "This mistake will be paid for in the blood and lives of police and members of the public."
The Taser cases will be among many considered by the Supreme Court's nine justices at their May 24 conference. If at least four justices agree, the combined cases will be added to the docket for the upcoming 2012 term.
While these particular Taser cases may not make the cut, in time others almost certainly will, as the proliferating technology keeps getting dragged into court.
In Woodland, Calif., for instance, the family of a man who died after being shocked several times won a $300,000 settlement in 2009. The next year, a Chowchilla, Calif., resident was awarded $330,000 after police shocked him at home.
Some are product liability cases challenging the manufacturer, Arizonabased Taser International, as when the family of a Salinas, Calif., man in 2008 was awarded $6.2 million after he was shocked and went into cardiac arrest. The cases now being considered by the Supreme Court are different. They challenge the police officers who fired the Tasers. The issue is excessive force.
"When you get to the use of a new weapon, that's the issue that will get up to the Supreme Court eventually," Woodland Hills, Calif.-based attorney Peter Williamson, who has taken on some high-profile Taser cases, predicted in an interview Friday. "It's taken years for these cases to filter up."[/quote]
[url=http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/TASER/articles/5503505-Supreme-Court-to-weigh-police-use-of-TASERs/]Sauce[/url]
IMO - I think they should keep them because they are an alternative to shooting someone, despite the risks. No one likes being TASERd but, it could be worse.[Worst 5s of your life? or being dead?]
Dont even bother reading this shit-thread. Lankist once again challenges my views.
Reason why they are likely to be banned is because they can kill you rather easily, a pulsed electrical current at low amperage is more likely to stop the heart than a high current non pulsed shock.
Keep them. I think they've stopped a lot more potentially deadly encounters then caused them.
to be fair, they can be dangerous
at the same time, banning means cops will be more likely to go for the gun
I only say get rid of them if there is a more viable and safer alternative to using them which works just as well in disabling a potentially deadly situation
Give everyone high pressure cans of OC, that shit will knock anyone down.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35866345]Give everyone high pressure cans of OC, that shit will knock anyone down.[/QUOTE]
More like everyone within a 15 foot radius.
[QUOTE=areolop;35866351]More like everyone within a 15 foot radius.[/QUOTE]
Hey, still a better alternative I think.
Tasers are the safe alternative to guns and pepper spray, why take them away? It's a mostly safe way to restrain a person who is resisting arrest (or whatever situation it may be).
The real issue here is that the police are abusing them. The officers need to be trained how to use them without overdoing it and severely hurting the target.
[QUOTE=153x;35866407]Tasers are the safe alternative to guns and pepper spray, why take them away? It's a mostly safe way to restrain a person who is resisting arrest (or whatever situation it may be).
[/QUOTE]
Thats the whole argument in the case. Realistically, their not that safe. They can easily kill someone if they had a heart condition, or if shot in the face.
[QUOTE=153x;35866407]Tasers are the safe alternative to guns and pepper spray, why take them away? It's a mostly safe way to restrain a person who is resisting arrest (or whatever situation it may be).
The real issue here is that the police are abusing them. The officers need to be trained how to use them without overdoing it and severely hurting the target.[/QUOTE]
Half the time with people dying from tasers are those with pacemakers and serious heart problems. It's not entirely the officer's fault. I think a safer alternative would be a dedicated pistol that fires a 40mm lead ball coated in hard rubber at 400fps to knock them down and fuck them up without killing them.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35866375]Hey, still a better alternative I think.[/QUOTE]
Ever been OC'd?
[QUOTE=areolop;35866459]Ever been OC'd?[/QUOTE]
Thankfully no, and I pray to god that I never do at some point in my career. Tear gas fucked me up pretty bad, god only knows what hell OC is going to do to me.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35866545]Thankfully no, and I pray to god that I never do at some point in my career. Tear gas fucked me up pretty bad, god only knows what hell OC is going to do to me.[/QUOTE]
Hands-Down, the worst experience in my life. Not only does it burn when you get it, but when you take a shower, it burns again. (think about shaking some of that hot-pepper stuff directly into your eye)
New rule:
Don't fucking electrocute pregnant women.
[editline]7th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hunterdnrc;35866277]Keep them. I think they've stopped a lot more potentially deadly encounters then caused them.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that the police are treating them as though they are not dangerous. They're tazing people when they don't need to be tazing people, and they're treating them as the non-lethal all-problem-solver.
They can be deadly, and they must be treated as such. Used only when they NEED to be used, not when you feel like putting down a peaceful protestor or whatnot.
They're going to keep the tasers. What the Supreme Court is going to do is establish rules as to when they are justified in USING the tasers. As it stands, they can just taze the fuck out of anyone with little in the way of consequences, primarily because everyone perceives tasers are inherently nonlethal and non-threatening.
[QUOTE=areolop;35866833]Hands-Down, the worst experience in my life. Not only does it burn when you get it, but when you take a shower, it burns again. (think about shaking some of that hot-pepper stuff directly into your eye)[/QUOTE]
All of my instructors have said to use baby shampoo.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35866848]New rule:
Don't fucking electrocute pregnant women.
[/QUOTE]
A pregnant woman is just as deadly as one that isnt.
[QUOTE=areolop;35867935]A pregnant woman is just as deadly as one that isnt.[/QUOTE]
Ahahaha are you serious?
[QUOTE=areolop;35867935]A pregnant woman is just as deadly as one that isnt.[/QUOTE]
And you wonder why I mock you.
This time on Areolop's Police Apologist Power Hour
Pregnant Women? Is it okay to shoot them with tasers?
Yes. They're dangerous as fuck.
Have you seen a pregnant woman they are HUGE fucking shoot them with electricity, god bless our police
[QUOTE=Melkor;35867958]Ahahaha are you serious?[/QUOTE]
Dead serious. If a pregnant women is pointing a gun at me, is the same threat as one who is not pregnant
[editline] Explanation[/editline]
Let me re-phrase this since people think that I am talking about tasers.
If a pregnant woman has the intention of killing another human being with a gun, she is the exact same threat as someone who is not pregnant. Of course everyone will be angered by the fact that you may have killed two with one round, but you have to do what you have to do, to go home at the end of the night. Would tasering a pregnant woman is not the same. Officers have many other tools in their arsenal to resolve a situation that may require a taser.
[QUOTE=areolop;35867989]Dead serious. If a pregnant women is pointing a gun at me, its the same if a non pregnant one.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, you don't taze someone who is carrying a gun.
What kind of shitty cop are you?
If you taze someone with a gun, ALL of their muscles contract and they WILL pull the trigger. That's sort of what a taser fucking does.
All police are SUPPOSED to know this.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35866848]New rule:
Don't fucking electrocute pregnant women.[/QUOTE]
"Electrocute" implies death by means of electric shock. Tasers have almost never electrocuted anyone - they've disabled pacemakers in some instances which causes death, but if you do not have a pre-existing condition, it is extremely unlikely that you will die if you are shot with a Taser.
Like I've said again and again, the amount of gunshot deaths offset by Taser use far outweighs the deaths caused (directly or indirectly) by Tasers. They are simply the safest less-lethal option. OC spray is sometimes ineffective (you can develop a tolerance to it, or if you are extremely intoxicated you won't feel it) and can hit other people in the area easily. Rubber bullets can kill quite easily if you're hit in the head and often cause pretty serious injuries elsewhere, and same with beanbags. There really isn't a lot else to do, other than batons and hard touch (punching, kicking, etc.) which obviously can fuck someone up good.
My money is on federal guidelines for appropriate Taser use. The standard use of force continuum used by law enforcement is just too vague, so officers can immediately jump to Tasers.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;35867997]"Electrocute" implies death by means of electric shock. Tasers have almost never electrocuted anyone - they've disabled pacemakers in some instances which causes death, but if you do not have a pre-existing condition, it is extremely unlikely that you will die if you are shot with a Taser.
Like I've said again and again, the amount of gunshot deaths offset by Taser use far outweighs the deaths caused (directly or indirectly) by Tasers. They are simply the safest less-lethal option. OC spray is sometimes ineffective (you can develop a tolerance to it, or if you are extremely intoxicated you won't feel it) and can hit other people in the area easily. Rubber bullets can kill quite easily if you're hit in the head and often cause pretty serious injuries elsewhere, and same with beanbags. There really isn't a lot else to do, other than batons and hard touch (punching, kicking, etc.) which obviously can fuck someone up good.
My money is on federal guidelines for appropriate Taser use. The standard use of force continuum used by law enforcement is just too vague, so officers can immediately jump to Tasers.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, no. Police do not use tasers on suspects wielding firearms.
Tazing a suspect whose finger is on the trigger guarantees a discharge.
Please cite these statistics.
Also tasers are only non-lethal if you don't hold down the shock-the-fuck-out button.
[QUOTE=areolop;35867989]Dead serious. If a pregnant women is pointing a gun at me, its the same if a non pregnant one.[/QUOTE]
while a pregnant woman may be as dangerous as another female, you have to account for the fact that you'll likely kill two, one being completely innocent as opposed to just one.
[QUOTE=areolop;35867989]Dead serious. If a pregnant women is pointing a gun at me, its the same if a non pregnant one.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but surely you'd take into account that she's carrying a child, right?
What if she had a baby in her arm whilst pointing a gun at you, would you tase her and the baby?
[QUOTE=koeniginator;35868018]while a pregnant woman may be as dangerous as another female, you have to account for the fact that you'll likely kill two, one being completely innocent as opposed to just one.[/QUOTE]
Tasers are extremely dangerous to a developing fetus.
They could very easily stop their heart.
It's one thing to taze someone.
It's another to kill their unborn kid in the process.
[editline]7th May 2012[/editline]
Also Malaika Brooks, the woman in this article, was unarmed and was only stopped for a routine speeding ticket when she was tazed.
[editline]7th May 2012[/editline]
Her eight year old son was also in the car
LOOK OUT, DANGEROUS PREGNANT WOMAN, BETTER SHOOT HER WITH ELECTRICITY
good idea, no tasers.
back to the old days where cops just beat the shit out of you for resisting
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w-SP7iuM6k[/media]
Also she was tazed for refusing to step out of her car. After the shock, the police DRAGGED A PREGNANT WOMAN TO THE GROUND and arrested her.
[url]http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Pregnant-woman-Tasered-by-police-is-convicted-1172950.php[/url]
They did this because she refused to sign a ticket.
She was not threatening. She never exited the car. She never threatened anyone. She was unarmed. They shocked, tackled, and arrested a pregnant woman because she wouldn't sign a piece of paper.
YAY POLICE.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;35868073]good idea, no tasers.
back to the old days where cops just beat the shit out of you for resisting
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w-SP7iuM6k[/media][/QUOTE]
Obviously the only alternative to tasers is to beat the fuck out of people when they're already down.
[QUOTE=areolop;35867935]A pregnant woman is just as deadly as one that isnt.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, there's two of them, so they might be twice as dangerous.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.