Hey that's in my own backyard..i think this is the fourth use of a stun gun against a child here in Florida. Here in St. Augustine last year a man died from a heart attack after being tasered.
If the police account is true, I have little sympathy for the brat. I don't expect the police to risk significant injury to themselves when trying to subdue a violent perp, even if that violent perp is a child. Excessive force would have been shocking her after she had complied.
The 65-pound girl was handcuffed in the back of a patrol car Feb. 7 when she was shocked twice with a 50,000-volt Taser, according to a Sheriff's Office report.
So, she was already in handcuffs, and already in the back of the patrol car. Even if she was screaming and kicking, she was only endangering the seat of the car. They shot her twice with a taser for being annoying?
The girl was handcuffed and placed into a patrol car, but she managed to slide her cuffed arms to the front of her. Police said she refused requests to put her arms behind her back and began kicking and screaming.
An officer attempted to subdue the girl with a neck lock, but was unable to get control of her.
There are pretty good reasons why perps have their hands cuffed behind their backs, and this particular perp had already demonstrated violent behavior. She wasn't simply being annoying; she wasn't complying with procedures probably designed to control violent perps (again, of whom she was demonstrably one). Her size and age are irrelevant (I'm a father of three, by the way).
Had she been engaging in annoying singing or yelling, I'd have objected to the use of the taser. This wasn't that sort of annoying behavior.
stun guns can kill fully grown adult males. are you FUCKING serious guy? a little tiny girl?? they could have killed her, ebcause her and her mother were arguing?? im sorry, but nothing permits coming close to killing a girl over a family violence domestic despute. wtf?
if she died, could she have seen the sun rise again? could she have learned from her mistakes?
Note that she survived the first Tasering just fine, and was even conscious (and still non-compliant). I am unfamiliar with the usage of putting it directly against the skin, but if that does indeed somehow localize the electrical discharge, that sounds even safer than a standard use).
I've wrestled 60-pound girls before at work. It's harder than it looks, and there's no way to know from one news story how much danger she was presenting to herself or others. See below for a discussion of levels of force.
I expect the police to risk personal injury to protect innocents from harm. I certainly do not expect the police to risk personal injury to protect a violent criminal, which ipso facto describes anyone who initiates violence, including that girl.
Were a handgun involved, I'd prefer if the police fired a warning shot first. However, I'd rather they shot her than risk injury to themselves.
I think you would find yourself far more at home in a right wing dictatorship than a free country.
It is a fact of life that sometimes good people do unreasonable things, sometimes people get drunk and get in fights they would never be in if sober, sometimes they get angry as hell about something and are temporarily unable to respond to reason.
If they threaten the life of others in that state then the police are justified in using violence to restrain them, however if they pose no threat to others then the police should be the ones exercising restraint and should not put the culprit in greater danger by their actions.
In this case the threat seems to have been to property and there does not appear to be any reason for the police to believe their safety was in danger, certainly there is no reason for them to believe their lives were in danger from an unarmed 65lb girl.
To extrapolate, should the police be allowed to shoot someone merely for refusing to stop for them if they are otherwise driving safely? No the only time police can open fire on or ram a car is when the actions of the driver are threatening the lives of others.
If the police feel the lives of officers or civilians are in danger then I can accept them using potentially lethal or even lethal force.
They risked a 13 year old kids life for screaming at them and kicking their car, that is a definite over reaction.
I expect the police to risk personal injury to protect innocents from harm. The girl was innocent, under the law she is innocent until proven guilty, we are none of us totally innocent, they used potentially lethal force on someone who posed no threat to life and only a minimal threat of injury to others.
As a radical libertarian, I wouldn't be much at home in any kind of dictatorship, and no one I've ever met or read values freedom more than I. Freedom - which I define as freedom from coercion - includes the right to protect oneself and one's property, and to use any means necessary (including lethal retaliation) to do it.
The girl was in no way innocent; she simply hadn't been tried and convicted, so the law presumes that she may be innocent. "Not guilty" criminal verdicts don't imply innocence; they simply state that the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no dispute concerning the violence in which she had already engaged against an adult. She was out of control, and her hands were where they shouldn't have been. Perhaps she was no danger to the police officers' lives, but she might have intentionally hurt them physically, however slightly (the degree is irrelevant). That's not something they have to tolerate.
Are the officers above reproach here? Not necessarily. Perhaps if they'd restrained the violent brat better beforehand, she wouldn't have been able to get her hands in front of her. Perhaps they should have cuffed her feet, too, and used better restraints. That's a matter worth investigating, surely. But restrained or not, the girl wasn't simply kicking the car; her hands were in a dangerous position.
You're dancing perilously close to Guilty until proven innocent here, Noah.
And I'm sorry, but if multiple officers can't subdue a cuffed 65 pound thirteen year old that's already in their cruiser without resorting to a tactic that has the potential to kill and has killed grown adults, then they need to find another line of work.
What would you prefer they have done? Clubbed her over the head with a nightstick?
There's a little thing called a Force Matrix in any reasonable PD. Stun guns aren't lethal force, and they don't generally carry the risk of permanent injury (like batons and pain-compliance techniques). In some cases, that means they can be used for active noncompliance.
*Can* doesn't mean *should*, but that's probably why the article is worded the way it is. The investigation is still ongoing, after all.
Stun guns are potentially life threatening to even a full grown male, the risk of permanent injury or death is even higher in this case when it was used twice on a handcuffed, unarmed, 65lb teenage girl.
from what I read in the article she was handcuffed in the back of the police car and so not a threat to anyone but herself and the interior of the police car. I bet those 2 cops are very proud of having to resort to a stun gun to subdue a small girl, something ells me they are the laughing stock of their force for it, I would find it hilarious if their actions hadn't put a kids life at risk.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 03:30 pm (UTC)Here in St. Augustine last year a man died from a heart attack after being tasered.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 06:01 pm (UTC)So, she was already in handcuffs, and already in the back of the patrol car. Even if she was screaming and kicking, she was only endangering the seat of the car. They shot her twice with a taser for being annoying?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 06:22 pm (UTC)The girl was handcuffed and placed into a patrol car, but she managed to slide her cuffed arms to the front of her. Police said she refused requests to put her arms behind her back and began kicking and screaming.
An officer attempted to subdue the girl with a neck lock, but was unable to get control of her.
There are pretty good reasons why perps have their hands cuffed behind their backs, and this particular perp had already demonstrated violent behavior. She wasn't simply being annoying; she wasn't complying with procedures probably designed to control violent perps (again, of whom she was demonstrably one). Her size and age are irrelevant (I'm a father of three, by the way).
Had she been engaging in annoying singing or yelling, I'd have objected to the use of the taser. This wasn't that sort of annoying behavior.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 10:01 pm (UTC)if she died, could she have seen the sun rise again?
could she have learned from her mistakes?
no.
.......death is the only consistant in life.
Please document deaths due to Taser usage (and not mitigating factors) in healthy persons.
Date: 2005-03-09 03:10 am (UTC)I've wrestled 60-pound girls before at work. It's harder than it looks, and there's no way to know from one news story how much danger she was presenting to herself or others. See below for a discussion of levels of force.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 11:22 pm (UTC)The girl was 65lbs and handcuffed, not a threat to the life of or probably even the safety of a fully grown adult male police officer.
Would your opinion be the same if they had shot her in the leg or arm?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 03:17 am (UTC)Were a handgun involved, I'd prefer if the police fired a warning shot first. However, I'd rather they shot her than risk injury to themselves.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 05:30 am (UTC)It is a fact of life that sometimes good people do unreasonable things, sometimes people get drunk and get in fights they would never be in if sober, sometimes they get angry as hell about something and are temporarily unable to respond to reason.
If they threaten the life of others in that state then the police are justified in using violence to restrain them, however if they pose no threat to others then the police should be the ones exercising restraint and should not put the culprit in greater danger by their actions.
In this case the threat seems to have been to property and there does not appear to be any reason for the police to believe their safety was in danger, certainly there is no reason for them to believe their lives were in danger from an unarmed 65lb girl.
To extrapolate, should the police be allowed to shoot someone merely for refusing to stop for them if they are otherwise driving safely?
No the only time police can open fire on or ram a car is when the actions of the driver are threatening the lives of others.
If the police feel the lives of officers or civilians are in danger then I can accept them using potentially lethal or even lethal force.
They risked a 13 year old kids life for screaming at them and kicking their car, that is a definite over reaction.
I expect the police to risk personal injury to protect innocents from harm.
The girl was innocent, under the law she is innocent until proven guilty, we are none of us totally innocent, they used potentially lethal force on someone who posed no threat to life and only a minimal threat of injury to others.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 05:57 pm (UTC)The girl was in no way innocent; she simply hadn't been tried and convicted, so the law presumes that she may be innocent. "Not guilty" criminal verdicts don't imply innocence; they simply state that the state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no dispute concerning the violence in which she had already engaged against an adult. She was out of control, and her hands were where they shouldn't have been. Perhaps she was no danger to the police officers' lives, but she might have intentionally hurt them physically, however slightly (the degree is irrelevant). That's not something they have to tolerate.
Are the officers above reproach here? Not necessarily. Perhaps if they'd restrained the violent brat better beforehand, she wouldn't have been able to get her hands in front of her. Perhaps they should have cuffed her feet, too, and used better restraints. That's a matter worth investigating, surely. But restrained or not, the girl wasn't simply kicking the car; her hands were in a dangerous position.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 06:09 pm (UTC)And I'm sorry, but if multiple officers can't subdue a cuffed 65 pound thirteen year old that's already in their cruiser without resorting to a tactic that has the potential to kill and has killed grown adults, then they need to find another line of work.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 11:14 pm (UTC)Stun guns are a usefull tool for the police but as with any weapon their use by law enforcement agents needs to be strictly regulated.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 03:06 am (UTC)There's a little thing called a Force Matrix in any reasonable PD. Stun guns aren't lethal force, and they don't generally carry the risk of permanent injury (like batons and pain-compliance techniques). In some cases, that means they can be used for active noncompliance.
*Can* doesn't mean *should*, but that's probably why the article is worded the way it is. The investigation is still ongoing, after all.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 05:36 am (UTC)from what I read in the article she was handcuffed in the back of the police car and so not a threat to anyone but herself and the interior of the police car. I bet those 2 cops are very proud of having to resort to a stun gun to subdue a small girl, something ells me they are the laughing stock of their force for it, I would find it hilarious if their actions hadn't put a kids life at risk.