 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
According to one report, the officer in this story had 18 years on the job
when this incident occurred, so he's certainly no rookie. What did he do?
Well, he shot 50,000 volts of electricity, from a Taser gun, into an 18 year
old drug suspect for his [the suspect's] own good. You ask, "Where's the
catch? That doesn't sound so bad." Well, the officer zapped this guy while
he [the suspect] was strapped to a hospital bed. Now, you think, "This guy
must have been a mental case who was tearing away his restraints and
about to place others in danger." Sorry, nothing that dramatic. The
suspect refused to give hospital staff a urine sample. When he wouldn't
hold still for the insertion of a Catheter..."ouch!"..., the police officer
acted with stunning results, and the suspect agreed to urinate on his own.
What happened to the police officer? According to subsequent reports, the
State's Attorney charged him with misdemeanor battery which carries a 1
year jail sentence. He was lucky. He didn't get any jail time, and the
police department didn't fire him.
Sometimes, people just don't use good judgement. Do you think that same
police officer would have used his pepper spray in the same situation? Of
course, not. There is one thing this police officer did absolutely right... he
reported exactly what he did. He didn't try to cover up anything. You
hear a lot about the "cover-up" being worse than the actual deed, and that
is definitely true. That's the reason he's not in jail, and he still has his job.
when this incident occurred, so he's certainly no rookie. What did he do?
Well, he shot 50,000 volts of electricity, from a Taser gun, into an 18 year
old drug suspect for his [the suspect's] own good. You ask, "Where's the
catch? That doesn't sound so bad." Well, the officer zapped this guy while
he [the suspect] was strapped to a hospital bed. Now, you think, "This guy
must have been a mental case who was tearing away his restraints and
about to place others in danger." Sorry, nothing that dramatic. The
suspect refused to give hospital staff a urine sample. When he wouldn't
hold still for the insertion of a Catheter..."ouch!"..., the police officer
acted with stunning results, and the suspect agreed to urinate on his own.
What happened to the police officer? According to subsequent reports, the
State's Attorney charged him with misdemeanor battery which carries a 1
year jail sentence. He was lucky. He didn't get any jail time, and the
police department didn't fire him.
Sometimes, people just don't use good judgement. Do you think that same
police officer would have used his pepper spray in the same situation? Of
course, not. There is one thing this police officer did absolutely right... he
reported exactly what he did. He didn't try to cover up anything. You
hear a lot about the "cover-up" being worse than the actual deed, and that
is definitely true. That's the reason he's not in jail, and he still has his job.
When poor judgement prevails...
| Use of Force Taser |
| Taser Use Recommendations for Law Enforcement Officers from The Police Policy Studies Council -- Note the last recommendation on the list |
The Taser has steadily been gaining popularity among police departments.
The Taser, a non-lethal weapon that emits 50,000 volts of electricity with
low amperage, has proven to be quite efficient in subduing combative
suspects.
The media frequently airs tapes of police officers zapping people who
appear to be offering no resistance. The part that people have a hard time
understanding is the non-compliance issue. When you become a police
officer, you'll learn that many people fail to follow your verbal directions.
I love the tape where the officer orders a woman to exit her vehicle. Just
by the comments from the woman, it's obvious she has no intention to
follow the officer's orders even after he warns her that he's going to zap
her with the Taser. It should also be just as obvious that if the officer had
attempted to physically remove her from the vehicle, she would have
resisted, and some level of physical force would have been required to
control or subdue her. However, tasing a person for simple
non-compliance is never going to look good; unless, that person is of such
size; stature, and demeanor which indicates that a physical assault on you
is imminent.
The thing that is so attractive about the Taser is how clean the device does
it's job. It incapacitates a person instantly without inflicting bruises,
contusions, lacerations, or fractures -- the desired results of police
opponents and lawyers. Since the experience is so unpleasant, it's value as
a psychological deterrence for continued resistance cannot be overlooked.
But, as police are prone to do, they frequently screw up a good thing.
When it comes to the Taser, zapping small children and the elderly doesn't
sit well with anyone. As the piece above so graphically demonstrates,
there are times when the use of the weapon is clearly inappropriate.
As far as deaths resulting from use of the Taser, the debate is already
beginning to rage. It's not uncommon for violent persons who are subdued
by police to die following an encounter with police where the use of force is
required. These deaths are usually the result of preexisting physical
conditions exacerbated by the struggle or by substance abuse which caused
or contributed to their violent behavior. On my page entitled Police and
Force, had the officers used a Taser in the example I describe, the Taser
would have immediately been suspected as the woman's cause of death.
You should view the use of the Taser just as you would any other use of
force -- don't apply the force unless you must. It all comes down to your
decision to use force, because you're the one who's going to have to justify
the use of that force.
As with any technology, the Taser technology will be improved to a point
where it's size and availability for rapid use will become even more
convenient. The Taser, and similar technology, can have a very beneficial
effect for law enforcement, as well as those subjected to its force, as long
as police officers don't abuse this very promising advancement.
The Taser, a non-lethal weapon that emits 50,000 volts of electricity with
low amperage, has proven to be quite efficient in subduing combative
suspects.
The media frequently airs tapes of police officers zapping people who
appear to be offering no resistance. The part that people have a hard time
understanding is the non-compliance issue. When you become a police
officer, you'll learn that many people fail to follow your verbal directions.
I love the tape where the officer orders a woman to exit her vehicle. Just
by the comments from the woman, it's obvious she has no intention to
follow the officer's orders even after he warns her that he's going to zap
her with the Taser. It should also be just as obvious that if the officer had
attempted to physically remove her from the vehicle, she would have
resisted, and some level of physical force would have been required to
control or subdue her. However, tasing a person for simple
non-compliance is never going to look good; unless, that person is of such
size; stature, and demeanor which indicates that a physical assault on you
is imminent.
The thing that is so attractive about the Taser is how clean the device does
it's job. It incapacitates a person instantly without inflicting bruises,
contusions, lacerations, or fractures -- the desired results of police
opponents and lawyers. Since the experience is so unpleasant, it's value as
a psychological deterrence for continued resistance cannot be overlooked.
But, as police are prone to do, they frequently screw up a good thing.
When it comes to the Taser, zapping small children and the elderly doesn't
sit well with anyone. As the piece above so graphically demonstrates,
there are times when the use of the weapon is clearly inappropriate.
As far as deaths resulting from use of the Taser, the debate is already
beginning to rage. It's not uncommon for violent persons who are subdued
by police to die following an encounter with police where the use of force is
required. These deaths are usually the result of preexisting physical
conditions exacerbated by the struggle or by substance abuse which caused
or contributed to their violent behavior. On my page entitled Police and
Force, had the officers used a Taser in the example I describe, the Taser
would have immediately been suspected as the woman's cause of death.
You should view the use of the Taser just as you would any other use of
force -- don't apply the force unless you must. It all comes down to your
decision to use force, because you're the one who's going to have to justify
the use of that force.
As with any technology, the Taser technology will be improved to a point
where it's size and availability for rapid use will become even more
convenient. The Taser, and similar technology, can have a very beneficial
effect for law enforcement, as well as those subjected to its force, as long
as police officers don't abuse this very promising advancement.
"You should view the use of the Taser just as you would
any other use of force -- don't apply the force unless you
must."
any other use of force -- don't apply the force unless you
must."
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2010 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |
| Online Video Learning Systems: Police Exam - U.S. Border Patrol Exam |