Teen Shot by Police Stun Gun Dies ("non-lethal" Taser kills again)

[grizmaster]

"Dangerous" bible-thumper killed with taser by cops.

So when are tasers going to lose the lie of their "non-lethal" status?


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061031/D8L3ST701.html

Teen Shot by Police Stun Gun Dies

JERSEYVILLE, Ill. (AP) - A teenager carrying a Bible and shouting "I want Jesus" was shot twice with a police stun gun and later died at a St. Louis hospital, authorities said.

In a statement obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, police in Jerseyville, about 40 miles north of St. Louis, said 17-year-old Roger Holyfield would not acknowledge officers who approached him and he continued yelling, "I want Jesus."

Police tried to calm the teen, but Holyfield became combative, according to the statement. Officers fired the stun gun at him after he ignored their warnings, then fired again when he continued struggling, police said.

[LeftHander]

1. "continued convulsing...." nt

[Downtown Hound]

2. It seems to me that the first thing cops do these days

is break out the taser, even if the person they're confronting doesn't seem particularly aggressive. Like in this case, so some kid kept yelling, "I want Jesus," and wouldn't heed their commands. Is that a situation that calls for a taser? Even if tasers weren't dangerous, which they are, it doesn't seem right to me. But it seems that since tasers are deemed non-lethal, cops apparently feel they can use them whenever they want, regardless of whether or not it's way more excessive then the situation calls for.

Either these weapons need to be banned or their needs to be a serious review of how they're used, and there need to be penalties for officers that use them inappropriately.

[Jed Dilligan]

3. It's the "not heeding" part they can't tolerate

There are even some here who would argue that not obeying a cop's verbal command is sufficient reason for a person to be killed.

[grizmaster]

4. when there is no sign of a weapon

the "not heeding" part does not mean they have to act quickly. Quite the contrary it calls for patience and getting others out of the way until mental health people or perhaps fgamily members can be brought in.

[Jed Dilligan]

5. Ah, but then you raise the sticky question

of what constitutes a "weapon." A plastic cafeteria knife? Anything oblong? A bible, maybe?

[grizmaster]

6. a "weapon" would have to be something that a reasonable

person would consider threat enough that possibly lethal force is necessary to subdue the person (rather than say, 15 cops jumping him to restrain him).

So unless he was about to use that bible to cave in an infant's skull there's no way he was a serious enough threat to warrant not waiting for mental health folks to arrive on the scene.

If you know of any case of someone causing serious bodily harm to someone with a book I'd be curious to see that story.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. I think we're on the same side here

I'm pointing to some absurd justifications police have used in the past.

[grizmaster]

8. pardon my over-read

yeah I guess I should of figured that out with the plastic utensil reference. apologies