[jdonn]

luke warm, on Nov 22 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

jkljkl, on Nov 22 2007, 10:14 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 22 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

if a person is willing to break the rules or laws then that person can't later be surprised if there are consequences...

And the magnitude of the consequences has not to be in relation to "the crime" itself?

ciao stefan

yes, in a perfect world we'd all like to see the punishment fit the crime... but you sound as if you agree in principle that there should be some consequence, now it's only a matter of degree... how much simpler would it have been if the driver had just handed over the papers, signed the ticket and gone?

The goal isn't to be as simple as possible. It's to not kill anyone or ridiculously infringe on their rights as a human. By your argument the police officer could have shot him and it would be ok. You haven't found a single counter to the assertion that the punishment was excessive, even if some was deserved.

You're right though, I'm reminded of the other thread. Apparently these days you non-violently protest authority, get ready to have no rights.

luke warm, on Nov 22 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 22 2007, 03:45 AM, said:

I can't believe how people are letting this officer off. The driver was obviously just annoying and mad and a nuisance, big freaking deal.

you don't have to sign, ....

Then why did the officer make him leave the car!!!!!

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Nov 22 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

Tasering is supposed to be a "last resort" option - it isn't safe.

Quote

Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today. Including 10 TASER-related deaths through mid-February of this year, at least 152 people have died in the United States since June 2001 after being shocked with the weapons.

I agree - but I would be more interested in seeing not just the death tally, but the death tally in comparison to the number of uses of the taser. It would be interesting, as well, to examine possible correlations in the group of deceased - elderly, ill, drunk, and on drugs are four conditions that I think might lead to an increase in the chance of death. There might be others.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Nov 22 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Nov 22 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

Tasering is supposed to be a "last resort" option - it isn't safe.

Quote

Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today. Including 10 TASER-related deaths through mid-February of this year, at least 152 people have died in the United States since June 2001 after being shocked with the weapons.

I agree - but I would be more interested in seeing not just the death tally, but the death tally in comparison to the number of uses of the taser. It would be interesting, as well, to examine possible correlations in the group of deceased - elderly, ill, drunk, and on drugs are four conditions that I think might lead to an increase in the chance of death. There might be others.

To be clear, I've watched 3 youtube presentations of the use of Tasering - one by UCLA security on a student in the school library; another on a questioner during a Kerry political rally; and now this one with the speeder.

In each case I've viewed, the one who was tasered was complicit in the event - mostly loud and uncooperative but none were violent. In this admitedly small sample, the Taser's use is apparently one of a control mechanism, much like the use of handcuffs might be.

I think this is a dangerous precedent to establish for the use of a Taser; especially as the Taser has been shown to be a dangerous weapon that can bring about death - regardless of co-morbidities.

I am not challenging the patrolman's right to stop or right to make an arrest - his actions were within his rights. I do question his decision to withdraw and fire a Taser, though, in what appeared to be a non-violent confrontation. Again, my POV is that the force used was mismatched to the threat involved - although the patrolman may have a different perspective, and I would certainly be willing to hear his side. He may have seen things from his perspective that did not show up in the video, and his experience may have warned him of possible violence - these things we don't know.

[jkljkl]

blackshoe, on Nov 22 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

I agree - but I would be more interested in seeing not just the death tally, but the death tally in comparison to the number of uses of the taser. It would be interesting, as well, to examine possible correlations in the group of deceased - elderly, ill, drunk, and on drugs are four conditions that I think might lead to an increase in the chance of death. There might be others.

Hello,

1) Comparison use/people killed: Why does it matter? I think the problem is more the increased use of such devices in situations where it is not necessary. The percantage of people killed is likely to be the same over the years. But if you are going to use those weapons 500.000 times more every year (fictional number) the death toll will be higher.

2) Correlation ill people/people killed: Would you feel relieved if you hear that mostly people with a weak heart and/or diabetes are killed?

The police officer had no idea if the man had a hearth disease or not, but accepted the possibility that the guy could be killed.

I am not saying that I have a problem or not with the actual case, but somehow I have the sensation that the stock exchange value of a human life has dropped a lot in the last few years. And it is amazing how fast we get used to it.

ciao stefan

PS
A more palpable example is the video of the polish guy killed at the Vancouver airport on the 14th October

[barmar]

I think a more useful way to look at the Taser death statistics is to try to determine what the death toll might have been WITHOUT Tasers. Let's say 500,000 people were tasered, and 10 of them died. But it's possible that without tasers, 250,000 of them would have been shot with guns, and 100 of them would have died. There would have been fewer shootings because police officers know that guns are very dangerous and should only be used in the most extreme circumstances; but that same reason is why there would be more overall deaths. The use of Tasers reduces the death rate by 90% in my example.

You can't look at one statistic in a vacuum, you need the entire context.

And I think the reference to ill people may be pointing out that many of them might have died anyway. If the officer didn't have a Taser, he would have had to subdue the subject with physical force; if he has a weak heart, a fight like this could cause an attack. So it would be useful to compare the statistics of death by Taser on people with heart conditions with the statistics of death by wrestling to the ground on people with heart conditions. If they're similar, then the Taser is no more dangerous, but it's probably more effective and safer for the officer.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on Nov 22 2007, 10:39 PM, said:

I think a more useful way to look at the Taser death statistics is to try to determine what the death toll might have been WITHOUT Tasers.  Let's say 500,000 people were tasered, and 10 of them died.  But it's possible that without tasers, 250,000 of them would have been shot with guns, and 100 of them would have died.  There would have been fewer shootings because police officers know that guns are very dangerous and should only be used in the most extreme circumstances; but that same reason is why there would be more overall deaths.  The use of Tasers reduces the death rate by 90% in my example.

You can't look at one statistic in a vacuum, you need the entire context.

And I think the reference to ill people may be pointing out that many of them might have died anyway.  If the officer didn't have a Taser, he would have had to subdue the subject with physical force; if he has a weak heart, a fight like this could cause an attack.  So it would be useful to compare the statistics of death by Taser on people with heart conditions with the statistics of death by wrestling to the ground on people with heart conditions.  If they're similar, then the Taser is no more dangerous, but it's probably more effective and safer for the officer.

It would depend entirely on the reason for the use of the Taser. If the Taser were only used as a defensive weapon in lieu of other types of combat, then what you say would be right.

However, if the Taser is used as a means of controlling a non-violent but non-cooperative offender, then the comparison would have to be against some lesser means of compliance such as pepper spray or mace.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Nov 22 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 22 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

... how much simpler would it have been if the driver had just handed over the papers, signed the ticket and gone?

The goal isn't to be as simple as possible. It's to not kill anyone or ridiculously infringe on their rights as a human. By your argument the police officer could have shot him and it would be ok. You haven't found a single counter to the assertion that the punishment was excessive, even if some was deserved.

why should i counter an assertion? an assertion is simply an unproven opinion, it isn't something that deserves a debate... it's my opinion that the use of the taser in this case may have been excessive, but it's only my opinion... it's also my opinion that when a cop stops a person for any moving violation and asks for license, etc, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for not providing them... it's a lawful order and must be obeyed... bring it up in court and see if the judge has anything to say about it

luke warm, on Nov 22 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 22 2007, 03:45 AM, said:

I can't believe how people are letting this officer off. The driver was obviously just annoying and mad and a nuisance, big freaking deal.

you don't have to sign, ....

Quote

Then why did the officer make him leave the car!!!!!

i don't know why, but again the place to bring that up is in court

jkljkl said:

A more palpable example is the video of the polish guy killed at the Vancouver airport on the 14th October

i agree, now *that* should result in a winnable civil action at the very least and maybe even criminal charges

[Gerben42]

This police officer should be fired. This is ridiculous.

I mean the guy is asked to get out of his car, does so and gets an electric shock, which is basically just torture, abuse of power. I don't care if the police officer had a "bad day" but I would expect this kind of behaviour to not happen in any civilized country.

[jonottawa]

Gerben42, on Nov 23 2007, 06:33 AM, said:

I don't care if the police officer had a "bad day" but I would expect this kind of behaviour to not happen in any civilized country.

<Insert joke about 'civilized country' and either Utah or USA here.>

I don't like cops (that's not my preferred term for them, but in the interest of diminishing controversy ...). Austin's got one of the dirtiest (in terms of shooting defenseless people, and arresting innocent people) police forces in the country. I believe they're also the highest paid bunch in Texas.

That being said, if I were to vote I'd only give most of the blame to the officer. I've seen arrogant, power-trippy, neanderthal cops in action (and no, that isn't meant as a swipe at anyone here, so please don't take it that way.) This guy doesn't strike me as one of those. I think he was mostly afraid, insecure, and flighty. Looks like more of a bad training problem than an incorrigible 'respect my authoritah or I'll taser your ass' cop problem.

If I provoked an officer the way this guy did, I would expect to be arrested. That doesn't mean it's 'right' to arrest someone for behaving that way or that someone 'should' be arrested for behaving that way, but thousands of people a day 'do' get arrested for behaving that way.

If I started to walk away from an officer with his taser drawn on me who ordered me to turn around and put my hands behind my back, I would expect to get tasered.

All that being said, from the order to the taser was less than 5 seconds. Into an unarmed man, with a wife and kid in the car, whose plates you've already run (so you know with about 99.999% certainty that this isn't some serial killer on the run.) Add to that that the guy should have never been asked to step out of the car in the first place and that the officer's communication skills suck. The officer's behavior was wrong.

(Btw, I also thought it was interesting how the cop was already twisting the truth (to put it mildly) in the story he presented to his buddy at the very end of the video.)

[Gerben42]

Quite a difference from any police officers I've come across. I've usually found them calm and helpful. But they've never had reason to fine me or anything (other than breaking traffic rules while riding a bike, perhaps ). Seeing such a video is quite shocking then.

In Europe, the American police is known as trigger happy, and the immigration service is feared for cross-examining innocent people and keeping them at the airport for no apparent reason. All in all, not very positive.

These are reasons why people choose not to travel to the US! Publicity like this doesn't help.

[1eyedjack]

I've really got to get me one of those toys.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Give us your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...

So we can send them to Gitmo.

The United States have become something never envisioned by our founders. They would be appalled.

Quote

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Quote

"Mr. President, that would be unConstitutional!"
"Find me a way around that!"

That one was, in my memory, attributed to Bill Clinton, but could probably be attributed to many, if not most, if not all, Presidents, at least since the early 20th Century.

[Al_U_Card]

When a police officer tells you to do something, you must ask if you are under arrest. When he says yes, then you must ask what the charge is. When told, you may ask what your rights are (the officer should Mirandize you when he states you are under arrest and what the charge is.) Once that is done, comply fully. If that is not done, continue to request that information. He will lose interest quickly.

The officer deserves both reprimand and the requirement to apologize to the driver. The driver deserves compensation.

[sceptic]

Quote

Sixty-one people died in 2005 after being shocked by law enforcement agency TASERs, a 27 percent increase from 2004's tally of 48 deaths, finds an Amnesty International study released today. Including 10 TASER-related deaths through mid-February of this year, at least 152 people have died in the United States since June 2001 after being shocked with the weapons.

I wonder how many have been killed by speeding drivers?

[sceptic]

[QUOTE]The driver deserves compensation. [CODE]


Well sorry Al, but it is attitudes like that, that make this world a poorer place and lawyers richer

[mikeh]

We in Canada are publicly wrestling with Taser use by police officers, and as a lawyer involved in a couple of lawsuits in which Taser use or non-use is an issue, I have to be limited in what I write.

More importantly, my opinion is that we need to judge the actions of police officers in the US somewhat differently than those in most other industrialized nations.

Private gun ownership, especially of handguns, is a fact of life in the US, to a degree likely unimaginable to most Europeans. We in Canada are perhaps more aware of it because we get to share US media and we see the effects both at our border and in our cities. Vancouver is in the midst of gang warfare, with multiple hand-gun related homicides over the past several months. Toronto has been experiencing similar problems for over a year, and they are endemic in other centres: the police agencies attribute this to the prevalence of guns smuggled in from the US: it is virtually impossible for a citizen to lawfully acquire a handgun here, let alone carry it around, or have it in one's car.

But many Americans are proud of their right to own multiple handguns.. and routinely carry them, concealed, on their person or in their car. They think it makes them safer... despite the statistics that demonstrate that US citizens living in the US are far more likely to be killed by handguns than the citizens of any other western nation.

So, look at the mindset that any highway patrol or traffic cop has to have. Literally each and every driver they pull over may be more heavily armed than is the police officer! These guys take their lives in their hands with every traffic stop. And every US driver knows this.

In a perfect world, all cops would be more restrained. But in a perfect world, no cops would be shot by pissed-off drivers at traffic stops, using a legally obtained, and carried handgun (or semi-automatic assault rifle).

While we may wish for less police violence, and I am not saying that police officers, as a whole, are on any higher moral ground than any other profession or lawful occupation, we should perhaps temper our moral indignation by imagining what life is like for someone in his position. Sometimes what appear to be vicious overreactions are motivated by a legitimate fear.

As a disclaimer: many years ago I did some criminal defence, including acting for several individuals roughed up by certain police officers, and more recently I represent police officers in litigation matters. My experience is that there are a few bad apples, as there are in any body of people, but that the vast majority of police officers are fundamentally decent people doing a tough job.. and I see no reason not to suppose that the same holds true in the US, where I suspect that the job is even more onerous and certainly more dangerous.

If you want polite, restrained police officers... take the guns away from the citizenry! Of course, the wingnuts don't like that idea... my god, if we allow that, the communists will take over!!! Oh, I forgot, they don't exist as bogeymen any more.

But let ordinary (which includes tired, frustrated, angry emotionally upset people) carry loaded handguns, and stop kidding yourselves that this doesn't impact on the attitude of those required to interact with them, in a manner that is bound to annoy anyone... have YOU ever been happy to be ticketed?


EDIT: the preceding was a general post re what I saw in some earlier posts about an attitude towards police in general: having seen the video, I am less inclined to give this officer the full benefit of the doubt: I am puzzled as to why the decision to arrest was made... the only inciting event appears to be a refusal to sign the citation... I may well be mistaken, but I wouldn't have thought that the refusal to sign was an arrestable offence

[Al_U_Card]

[quote name='sceptic' date='Nov 23 2007, 02:46 PM'] [QUOTE]The driver deserves compensation. [CODE]


Well sorry Al, but it is attitudes like that, that make this world a poorer place and lawyers richer [/quote]
Both valid points. AS far as traffic deaths, way more than terror-related deaths, but that didn't stop the boys at Fatherland Security from stripping the guts out of the constitution, did it.

As far as legal action. After watching the video, this cop was a menace and lacking in judgement as to how to deal with a young man with a wife and child. Remain calm, explain the alternatives (as any good civil servant should) and then politely request compliance. No need for the out-of-control Ramboistic approach.

[skjaeran]

mikeh, on Nov 23 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

Private gun ownership, especially of handguns, is a fact of life in the US, to a degree likely unimaginable to most Europeans.

That's true for most European countries, but not for Norway. The % of households owning gun(s) in Norway is much higher than all other western countries, except for USA. Still our rate of murders (with or without the use of a gun) is very low. Of course, except for some criminals, Norwegian gun owners keep their guns locked down and unloaded when not in use (for hunting, shooting competitions/practice etc).

It's not the number of weapons that is the problem I believe. More how weapons are conceived by the public.

Norwegian police is btw, generally not armed.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Nov 23 2007, 05:13 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 23 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

Private gun ownership, especially of handguns, is a fact of life in the US, to a degree likely unimaginable to most Europeans.

That's true for most European countries, but not for Norway. The % of households owning gun(s) in Norway is much higher than all other western countries, except for USA. Still our rate of murders (with or without the use of a gun) is very low. Of course, except for some criminals, Norwegian gun owners keep their guns locked down and unloaded when not in use (for hunting, shooting competitions/practice etc).

It's not the number of weapons that is the problem I believe. More how weapons are conceived by the public.

Norwegian police is btw, generally not armed.

How many of the guns, in Norway, are handguns, Harald? In Canada, especially in the rural areas, there are a lot of 'guns', but most of them are shotguns or rifles, used for hunting. There are gun clubs, but even there much of the shooting is with shotguns. Handguns are much more of a threat since it is tough to both conceal a shotgun/rifle and have quick access to it in a confrontation in a public place.

[skjaeran]

mikeh, on Nov 23 2007, 11:23 PM, said:

skaeran, on Nov 23 2007, 05:13 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 23 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

Private gun ownership, especially of handguns, is a fact of life in the US, to a degree likely unimaginable to most Europeans.

That's true for most European countries, but not for Norway. The % of households owning gun(s) in Norway is much higher than all other western countries, except for USA. Still our rate of murders (with or without the use of a gun) is very low. Of course, except for some criminals, Norwegian gun owners keep their guns locked down and unloaded when not in use (for hunting, shooting competitions/practice etc).

It's not the number of weapons that is the problem I believe. More how weapons are conceived by the public.

Norwegian police is btw, generally not armed.

How many of the guns, in Norway, are handguns, Harald? In Canada, especially in the rural areas, there are a lot of 'guns', but most of them are shotguns or rifles, used for hunting. There are gun clubs, but even there much of the shooting is with shotguns. Handguns are much more of a threat since it is tough to both conceal a shotgun/rifle and have quick access to it in a confrontation in a public place.

I haven't got numbers for that, but I expect the ratio of handguns to be far lower here than in the US. You're right about handguns being much more of a threat. But you won't find handguns lying around in Norwegian homes - they're locked down. The number of unregistered handguns in criminal hands are increasing though. And those are more liable to be kept at the ready.