Taser ruling sets standards for police, claims

[CreekDog]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Police need reasons to believe a suspect is dangerous before firing a Taser and can't use their stun gun simply because the person is disobeying orders or acting erratically, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday.

The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sets judicial standards for police and for people who claim they were victims of excessive force after police hit them with a Taser dart.

"The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public," Judge Kim Wardlaw said in the 3-0 ruling.

Though stun guns may offer a valuable, nonlethal alternative to deadly force in defusing dangerous situations, Wardlaw said, they inflict a "painful and frightening blow" and must be used only when substantial force is necessary and other options are unavailable.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/28/BA811BAG5G.DTL&tsp=1

---

Amen. And this is a federal ruling.

[Mithreal]

1. Excellent news, does it go far enough?

[loudsue]

4. Not far enough, but it's better than nothing.

SOME police will still be bullies regardless of the law, and police departments will still demand that the officer used appropriate force to cover their asses. It will certainly help in court, however, if someone gets it on video and it is obvious the police acted wrongly. THEN the cop might get a slap on the wrist.

[shadowknows69]

14. Comes down to the individual departments and how they choose to enforce themselves.

But hopefully with a million video cameras on the streets maybe it will be enough to scare some cops into behaving better.

[paulsby]

2. it's the 9th circuit. it will be overruled. i'll bet anybody here

:) . 9th circuit has a pretty poor record on this front

[CreekDog]

3. Ah, dredging up right wing talking points about the 9th circuit

are you also on board for tasering people that pose no threat?

[paulsby]

8. i'm making a prediction and willing to make a bet

will you take that bet?

i will bet you this will be overturned. if i'm right, i'm right. if i'm wrong, i'm wrong

fwiw, i've carried a taser for over 3 years and never tased ANYBODY

[lazer47]

11. That is like saying, I carry a Knife and have never stabbed anyone

What is you point???

[paulsby]

37. no, it's not

because i work active patrol districts. most everybody i work with has had several taser applications. i haven't had any.

i have had a few taser displays (gained voluntary compliance by drawing WITHOUT firing) but no deployments.

so, that is an interesting point.

given the high # of arrests i've made and the busy districts, it shows a lot of restraint.

i've never had an excessive force complaint of ANY kind, taser or anything else.

so, it's relevant.

[Leftist Agitator]

43. "i've never had an excessive force complaint of ANY kind, taser or anything else."

I'm genuinely curious, how many of your colleagues (expressed as a percentage of the whole force) could say the same?

[paulsby]

51. hard to say but...

i want to make a couple of points clear

having excessive force complaint(s) doesn't necessasrily mean you did anything wrong.

many complaints involve false allegations. many others are truthful, but what they are complaining about is not actually excessive.

others are valid.

iow, i must admit part of it is sheer luck. part of it is restraint. part of it is physical prowess (i am a competitive strength athlete. most suspects won't mess with me, thus not necessitating force because they feel they would be unsuccessful.

but a HUGE part is knowing how to talk to people.

criminals are like animals. not necessarily smart, but usually intuitive. they sense weakness, arrogance, etc.

if you can exude confidence without arrogance and not display fear, they are less likely to take advantage whether by using force against you, or making a complaint.

i would hazard a guess that less than 25% of officers who have worked as long as i have (20 yrs +), and in busy districts (as opposed ot being paper pushers their whole careers) have no complaints, let alone no SUSTAINED complaints.

to summarize, i take partial credit, and i also attribute part of it to luck

[CreekDog]

23. do you believe it's a bad ruling just because Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy overturn it

does that automatically make it a "bad" ruling?

[paulsby]

38. you are making unfounded assumptions.

i didn't say it was a bad ruling.

i said it would likely be overturned. those are NOT the same thing.

sometimes good rulings get overturned. sometimes bad rulings don't.

i would prefer you actually read what i write, and not make up strawmen

[CreekDog]

39. well here's what you said

you said the 9th circuit has a "poor" record <--------- your word not mine

when someone is said to have a "poor" anything, that's a judgment call. so you own that. because you are putting a negative judgment on the 9th circuit rulings (rulings like this one).

so in the absence of stating an opinion, i came to the only conclusions i could from what you've said.

[paulsby]

41. no, it's not

you are backpedaling (how surprising)

i said the 9th circuit has a poor record (iow they get a fair # of cases overturned).

it does not follow that they make bad rulings. it follows that they make rulings that are inconsistent with the leanings of the scotus.

imo, they have made some very good rulings that got overturned, and some bad ones that got overturned.

i don't judge the soundness of a ruling on whether the scotus agrees with it.

i disagree frequently with the scotus.

hth

i did not comment on whether the ruling was good or bad, ONLY on the probability that it would be overturned. those are DIFFERENT things

[CreekDog]

45. As you said you didn't comment on the ruling and then you are being an ass to me

by giving me a hard time in not predicting whether it will be overturned or not, even though i said very clearly that i thought it was a good ruling.

and then you are getting into it with other posters into some childish betting thing whether it will be overturned.

well whatever.

you don't have to answer my questions and i sure as heck don't need to answer yours.

[paulsby]

47. yep. it's a free country

if i was an ass, i apologize.

it's part of my chahm

[CreekDog]

49. i would give you space to be an ass if you were actually saying something

but you won't address the substance of the matter, which might be interesting considering who you are.

:shrug:

[rantormusing]

5. So this goes in the poor record pile?

Seems like a pretty evenhanded ruling, do your job instead of pulling and waving a weapon.

[paulsby]

9. i'm making a predictiona and a bet.

care to take this bet?

[rantormusing]

28. Your bet is childish,

and a bit disingenuous. Are you a cop; you have the attitude of one of the bad ones. Asking for accountability when it comes to taser use doesn't strike me as radical lunacy left fringe, which is what your snark is suggesting. The thin blue line, to bad it's not Rowan Atkinson behind it. He believed in accountability, but it seems today we like our police propaganda to encourage breaking the rules, doing a little extra harm, that person may get back on the streets you know.

[paulsby]

36. translation: you won't commit to your opinion

it's simply a prediction.

[CreekDog]

40. and neither will you own up to your opinion

you are just making a bet too.

[paulsby]

42. i am owning up to it

i am saying i am betting that it will be overturned.

and you are weaseling away and failing to take a side. because god forbid somebody on the internets EVER has to admit "my bad, i was wrong".

that's usually the ultimate indignity to the fragile ego.

i have no problem admitting i am wrong. if the scotus does not overturn it, i will simply say "i was wrong"

and move on.

but at least i TOOk a position. you criticized mine, but failed to take the opposite side.

typical

[CreekDog]

44. you didn't comment on whether you agreed with the ruling or not & you chide me for not taking sides?

that's the substance of the issue

you took a side on whether it will be overturned or not. i have no idea.

i hope you are used to not being liked. :eyes:

[paulsby]

46. i would rather be correct

than liked.

i'm not a progressive (duh).

i'm certainly more liberal than obama (that's not hard) but this board leans far more progressive (on average) than me

i can deal with that.

i would rather disagree with somebody who is intellectually honest than agree with somebody who isn't.

iow, i'm not here for a circle jerk of agreement

hth

[CreekDog]

48. you aren't discussing the substance of the thing

why are you giving me a hard time for not taking your stupid bet over whether it will be overturned?

i don't know if it will be overturned, seems like it might be.

i know what i think of the ruling, you won't say what you think.

i don't want to bet with you because i don't want to meet you okay?

that you chose to get into arguments here over this is really weird.

[paulsby]

50. correct.

i was simply making a prediction. that got a bunch of people all kerfluffle. that's kind of odd.

the reason why it's relevant is that most posters seemed very happy about this ruling.

i was pointing out that it;'s more likely than not, imo that it will be overturned.

i think that's relevant.

[DesertDiamond]

7. If rulings like this one are getting overruled then that goes on the "poor record" of the

higher court that overrules it. As for the 9th Circuit, if this is an example of their rulings, then their record looks good to me.

[alp227]

33. Although the "Nutty Ninth" has a high reversal rate, other courts have fared worse

http://mediamatters.org/research/200512150016
http://www.slate.com/id/2170477/

[DeSwiss]

6. "Though stun guns may offer a valuable, nonlethal alternative to deadly force..."

- "Though stun guns may offer a valuable, and generally nonlethal alternative to deadly force...."

/fixed

K&R

[safeinOhio]

10. What ever happened to mace and pepper spray?

I don't remember very many deaths from them.

[pattmarty]

12. They weren't "non-lethal" enough. I just love these euphanisms........

........"non-lethal", "collateral damage", and the best "peace officer".:sarcasm:

[tblue37]

32. They are LESS lethal, NOT nonlethal. nt

[bowens43]

13. a good first step and about time too!!

the cops in this country are completely out of control when it comes to their toys.....

[burrfoot]

15. You all must be pretty strong

to hold up that GIGANTIC brush you're using to paint cops as taser-happy assholes.

I get that there are bad cops out there. Know what? There are bad people in every demographic you could possibly slice society into.

Keep in mind that for every story we hear about an out of control, authority-abusing officer; there are- literally- thousands who are doing their job well and properly.

Although I sincerely hope that you never come across a situation where you need a police officer to respond, I strongly suspect that if it should happen, you'll be damn glad they're there to help.

I'm not under the delusion that there aren't cops out there abusing their power; but most of these guys (and ladies) are putting themselves in harms way every day.

Maybe we can keep a little balance in our opinions when we're talking about "the police" as a whole.


:toast:

[fascisthunter]

16. I Haven't seen one person on this thread state anything near what you imply

if you think people being happy about this decision is an attack on all police, well, there's the problem. You just used a broad brush yourself...

[burrfoot]

19. Fair enough,

I guess it was really just one poster up-thread who got my attention with "the cops in this country are completely out of control when it comes to their toys"

You're right; on re-reading the thread that's not the general attitude expressed. My apologies for posting-without-thinking.



:dunce:

[fascisthunter]

21. cool... I KNOW there are good cops out there

this place isn't as anti-cop as it is anti-bad-cop... what a lot of others dislike about cops, is how cops tend to defend each other even if the cop's were illegal or out-of-line. Therein is why you may see people here broad-brushing all cops, instead of writing more specifically about the police officer(s)in question.

[CreekDog]

54. yeah i'm with the anti bad cops

but the stories i'm hearing make it sound like it's not rare enough.

[crikkett]

20. Troll?

Are you just trying to create controversy here?
:party:

[burrfoot]

24. Hang on...

I admitted I was too quick to post, earlier. I also apologized. Mea culpa.

Though I have to admit I do enjoy a lively discussion!


:evilgrin:

[crikkett]

35. K.

It's cool
I was on a troll-hunt
for my birthday this morning :party:

[burrfoot]

52. Congratulations, I hope you bagged

some good trolls, and happy birthday, crikkett! Hope you got to celebrate it well!


:toast:

p.s. where did you get that excellent triple-s? (sword and shield smiley, of course)

[Flaneur]

25. There's a difference between a bad cop and a bad plumber.

One can kill you and get away with it, the other won't fix your pipes properly.

There have been numerous incidents of questionable tasering and other use of force. There is a real issue with police use of force in this country. I posit that there are not adequate controls over police.

I've been in a situation where the police could have come in handy. They couldn't be bothered to show up. I took care of it myself (and never saw that would-be burglar again).

[burrfoot]

30. I completely support people being

responsible for their own protection / defense. If you look into it, you (the generic you, not you specifically Flaneur) will find that that it is not, in fact, the job of the police to protect or defend anybody.

It's just not what they're there for.

[rantormusing]

26. The be thankful talking point,

Not to be rude, but how many times do you have to hear, 99% of cops are saints before it loses its charm. For example, i gave cops the benefit of the doubt for too many years, about 25 years. I don't really care to do that anymore.

I've read too many stories, true stories, of overzealous officers busting down doors, tazering the mentally ill, killing small dogs, the list can go on and on. Kind of puts a damper on the majority are saints.

I did need the cops recently, but it was shift change, so they didn't want to talk to anyone when our apartment had just been broken into, and the people who were trying to break down my door ran past me. I was the only one in that building, it was a bit scary. The cops, nah, they didn't want to talk with anyone, or look at the scene, tell the landlord to call us. I had to plead with them to come in, and talk to the people who had just gotten home minutes after i did. It would be nice to at least say something to the people with the big crack in their door.

It's ridiculous.

Balance, here's balance, cops are just as bad, lazy, and good as any other person in any profession. They can suck, and suck hard. There are good ones, but with the incentives, military equipment, and authoritative policies, i doubt the good stay good for long, they just leave.

Take your balance to the innocent who have died, and for those who have suffered property damage and loss due to the overzealous actions of cops who want more control and more fancy gear.

[burrfoot]

29. rantormusing-

I wholeheartedly agree with your point- cops are just as bad, lazy, and good as any other person in any profession. I said that, although in slightly different words, in my first post of this thread.

I didn't claim 99%. I know that there are lots of people out there who have bad experiences with cops.

I'm very sorry for those who have lost, died, or suffered due to the overzealous actions of "cops who want more control and more fancy gear." There's nothing that I or anyone else could- or should- try to tell you that would make that situation better.

I just wanted to make a point about what I felt was an over-generalization. As tragic as individual stories are, I'm not aware of any information that this constitutes normal or common (statistically speaking) interactions with the police- again, when we're speaking of "the police" as a whole.

Also, FWIW, I'd be the last one to advocate that anyone rely on the police for protection, or expect them to get there in time to stop a crime in progress. That's not really what they're there for. They do have their place, however.

As do the pistol in the lockbox in my nightstand, the one that's occasionally in my pocket, and the shotgun in my closet. They won't solve every problem, they can cause great harm if misused, and they won't do any good if they aren't right where I am, right when I need them. But that doesn't mean that they won't also protect my (or another's) life in the extremely unfortunate circumstance where that would be necessary.

Also, just out of curiosity, did nobody read past that post, and see the two posts where I apologized for pre-emptive posting, before I really thought my response out? Keeeerist. What's a body gotta do?

:toast:

[CreekDog]

53. I won't paint police with the same brush

Although in the past year or two, I've expressed my concerns (new concerns) that law enforcement is attracting too many tough guys who can't show restraint and that officers are being trained in a way that exacerbates a situation rather than diffuses it.

but i don't know for sure, but something does appear to be changing.

[Dappleganger]

17. Stun gun + lazy cop = recipe for disaster.

[Matariki]

18. This is very good news - and long overdue.

[Realityhack]

22. I am curious as to how this relates to the language for deadly force.

I am also curious to know if it covers just tazers or stun guns as well.

IMO it seems that the point at which you can use a Tazer must be lower than the threshold for deadly force. Does anyone know the legal language and differences between this ruling and other use of force requirements/laws?

[backscatter712]

27. Good. Time for the pigs to be stripped of their portable torture devices. n/t

[tblue37]

31. You mean they can't use them on upset 6-year-olds in school,

or on handcuffed 9-year-old girls in the back of the police car, or on 75-year-old women who are upset when they can't find out what happened to their missing friend in a nursing home, or on people in wheelchairs, or on prisoners strapped down in hospital beds, or on unarmed leggless men, or on 14-year-old girls for skipping school, or on customers who forget to pick up their credit cards off the counter in Best Buy when they answer their cell phones, or deaf, partially blind 71-year-old ladies with glass eyes who don't respond to orders barked at them? (In the last case, they also roughed up her 94-year-old mother when she brought out a Tupperware bowl of water to wash the glass eye that popped out into the street when they went for her daughter. The cops said they were afraid the 94-year-old might use the bowl of water as a weapon!)

I collect these news articles, BTW, and these are all real-life situations where people were Tased for no good reason. I have more.

As in the case of the 94-year-old with a Tupperware bowl full of water that the cops thought might be used as a weapon, I am guessing that the police officers will still find a way to justify Tasing anyone they want to, since they find a way to consider pretty much anyone dangerous.

(And some people on DU will still find a reason to justify the use of the Taser, no matter what the situation.)

[lumpy]

34. Thanks for posting- these are vivid examples of why

something has to be done about this police 'abuse of power'. These examples should be plastered all over for everyone to see.