 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
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.
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.
"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."
would any other use of force -- don't apply the force
unless you must."
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Copyright © 2006 - 2008 - 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 |