Federal Court Limits the Use of Tasers

[J86]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/us/01taser.html?hp

[S204STi]

"Geoffrey P. Alpert, a professor of criminal justice at the University of South Carolina who recently completed a four-year study of the devices for the Department of Justice, said Tasers and other ?conducted electrical devices? were used by more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies and that some departments had already upgraded their rules to allow the devices to be used only in the case of an ?active or immediate threat.? If it is not overturned, he said, the Bryan case ?is going to impact a lot of departments that have not changed their standards.?"



Seems reasonable to me to limit these to certain circumstances.  I hate to second-guess the police, but it seems like there have been times when they have been used in situations which didn't call for it.

[SVT_Power]

I'm glad at least someone's starting to limit the use of these things. I mean it's a hell of a lot better than shooting someone, but there have been way too many cases of police abusing their taser uses

[dazzleman]

I'm glad at least someone's starting to limit the use of these things. I mean it's a hell of a lot better than shooting someone, but there have been way too many cases of police abusing their taser uses

You should have been tased when you got popped for excessive speed.  That would have been a fitting punishment. 

[280Z Turbo]

[bing_oh]

Doesn't really mean much. It's a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court (California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Alaska), very well known for their extremely liberal (and, sometimes, flat-out bizarre) rulings. It doesn't technically apply to any jursidiction outside of the 9th Circuit.

It's also a ruling that I don't agree with. They're putting the Taser at a higher level on the use of force continuum, something that doesn't fit the device. As it stands for most departments, the Taser is in the same general area as OC (pepper) spray. To restrict the Taser to use against an "active or immediate threat" ignores the fact that resistance isn't always active.

[bing_oh]

I'm glad at least someone's starting to limit the use of these things. I mean it's a hell of a lot better than shooting someone, but there have been way too many cases of police abusing their taser uses

Examples?

[TurboDan]

To restrict the Taser to use against an "active or immediate threat" ignores the fact that resistance isn't always active.

Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of "inactive" resistance? Is that something like refusing to put your hands behind your back but not actively trying to assault an officer?

[Rupert]

Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of "inactive" resistance? Is that something like refusing to put your hands behind your back but not actively trying to assault an officer?

And even better, an example of inactive resistance where a taser is appropriate.

[Rupert]

Doesn't really mean much. It's a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court (California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Arizona, and Alaska), very well known for their extremely liberal (and, sometimes, flat-out bizarre) rulings. It doesn't technically apply to any jursidiction outside of the 9th Circuit.

That's eight states. Seems like that means something.

[MX793]

Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of "inactive" resistance? Is that something like refusing to put your hands behind your back but not actively trying to assault an officer?

Well, if they're going to prevent the use of a taser for situations like this, then the police should just go back to doing it the old fashioned way:  Smack the perp with a nightstick until they comply.

[S204STi]

Well, if they're going to prevent the use of a taser for situations like this, then the police should just go back to doing it the old fashioned way:  Smack the perp with a nightstick until they comply.

It worked for Rodney King!

[bing_oh]

Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of "inactive" resistance? Is that something like refusing to put your hands behind your back but not actively trying to assault an officer?

And even better, an example of inactive resistance where a taser is appropriate.

Active resistance is when someone is actively fighting an officer. This is usually an all out brawl, with the bad guy trying to harm the officer and the officer doing his best to get the person under control and in custody. Passive resistance is when someone is trying to prevent being arrested but isn't actively trying to harm the officer. This is more common than active resistance, actually, and can vary from fleeing to curling up and fighting being handcuffed. Overcoming passive resistance can take as much force as overcoming active resistance...the average person doesn't understand the kind of force necessary to wrench somebody's arms behind their back and handcuff them if they don't want to comply. It's force that could easily end up doing harm to the suspect, but it's also a situation that could easily turn into active resistance. The most dangerous part of an arrest the the hands-on part...it's when the suspect has the chance to access an officer's weapons or easily assault the officer. If someone is giving indications of resisting that hands-on part (and any police officer with a little time on the road knows the signs of someone who's thinking about resisting), then it's either doing it the old fashioned way (the nightstick or the "polyester pile"), or using one of the newer tools like OC spray or the taser. Yes, those tools cause some temporary pain and some form of incapacitation, but they're alot safer than getting getting the crap kicked out of you 50's-style until you comply or are unconsicence.

[AutobahnSHO]

Taze the criminals. All of 'em.
The more we make it harder for LE to do their job, the more resistance there will be.

At the same time, HAMMER those officers who don't uphold the high expectations of the job, or kick them out of the force.

[GoCougs]

Well, if they're going to prevent the use of a taser for situations like this, then the police should just go back to doing it the old fashioned way:  Smack the perp with a nightstick until they comply.

Yup - it's a replacement for going down hard during an arrest. If I had to guess the esteemed court is coming at if from a Big Brother POV - heading off of giving the state too little ease to use irresistible force.

I laugh at the irony of the kooky mega liberal 9th Circuit in their laughable criminal protectionism even so; the end result is more perps go down with tackles, dog and night sticks, which LE will only be too happy to oblige.