Ha I love it

[[xeno]Julios]

She could have: A) Driven off in a rage without getting out - making her a threat.
She could have: B) Resisted dramatically when the officers tried to remove her from the car physicall to prevent A.
Either case makes her a threat.
And people do drive off once the cops are out of their cars. Sometimes while the cop is right next to them, trying to hold on through the open window.

Step1: remove keys from ignition

Step 2: force the cellphone away from her

Step 3: grab one arm each, until she calms down

Step 4: arrest her


or something like that.

[tnf]

Yea, I see nowhere in the above situation where he puts himself in a tactically risky position.

[Foo]

She was using a cellphone. If the cops were in proper position, there'd be no way she'd be able to magically conjure up any of those weapons (which were not in plain view) before they grabbed her arms.

I disagree.

Hell - i'd call for backup to get more cops on the scene if it meant I didn't have to taser someone.

Back to the point. She's in a car so it's one on one if you're going to pull her out of the vehicle.

You can see that the guy was just waiting for an excuse to tase her.

No, I can't. What, exactly, do you mean by this sensationalist statement?

[[xeno]Julios]

@Jules -
Trust me, even two men have their hands full when dealing with a woman 200+ lbs who is fucking crazy. The biggest reason is that you can't really do the same thing you would do to a guy - for example, just ram your knee into his stomach or groin and drop him. With a woman, you have to try and 'subdue' without really taking any offensive action or people are going to say "I can't believe you hit that girl."

Trust me - even breaking up fights with high school girls (two weighing less than 110 lbs) can be tricky for a guy who doesn't want to risk a kick to the groin or a fingernail to the eye.

Ok - i take back the gender issue to a degree.

But I still hold that using the taser was unecessary, unless the objective is to completely reduce risk to cops, which I think is misguided.

[tnf]

She is sitting in the car. Ignition is on the right side of the steering column. He has to lean in, reach around her, and get them out. At this point she could gauge his eyes, bite him (ear is always a good target for that), burn him with a cigaratte lighter from the car (my friend is a cop in Olympia and actually had that happen). Then he takes the cellphone, at which point she can spit in his face - once the spit is in his eyes, she could headbutt, bite, claw, grab his throat, bite his nose, scratch his face or throat.

I won't even get into the oversimplification of 'grab each arm until she calmes down'.

I will just say that NOTHING ever works as easy as a simple 1-4 stepwise.

It'd be like saying you can break up a fight between two drunks by:

1 - get between them
2 - put them in full nelsons so they can't punch
3 - escort them outside
4 - done

[[xeno]Julios]

Back to the point. She's in a car so it's one on one if you're going to pull her out of the vehicle.

If you had backup, you could get two cops on either side. That's more than enough power to control a human being, male or female.

No, I can't. What, exactly, do you mean by this sensationalist statement?

The fact that he started threatening her with the taser so early indicates that his behaviour was biased in favour of its usage. The fact that he waited until she slapped the other cop's arm away shows that he was just waiting for the slightest sign.

A good cop would not want to harm another person. A good cop would wait until it was absolutely necessary before taking that next step.

The fact that he tasered her AFTER she was on the ground speaks for itself.

[tnf]

Ok - i take back the gender issue to a degree.

But I still hold that using the taser was unecessary, unless the objective is to completely reduce risk to cops, which I think is misguided.

Then right there is where the whole disagreement hinges.

If a cop has the choice of being so much as scratched in the face if he doesn't taser a person, vs. not being scratched at all if he does, I think he is justified in tasering. He/she should not have to 'expect' ANY form of assault from an UNCOOPERATIVE CRIMINAL, regardless of how minimal.

[tnf]

If you had backup, you could get two cops on either side. That's more than enough power to control a human being, male or female.

You are assuming that the passenger door was unlocked then?

[inolen]

I would of tazered her as well. Do you think that cop feels like struggling/fighting with some fat annoying bitch? Hell no, he just wants to get off work in another hour. She was already oddly ignoring their commands (which made me think this video was going to turn into her doing something crazy), so I would of been suspicious as well. So.. he could tazer her and get it over with in a few seconds, or risk getting shot/stabbed/whatever when they struggle to get her out of there. Yea.. tazer it is.

[inolen]

If you had backup, you could get two cops on either side. That's more than enough power to control a human being, male or female.

Sure they could. But why should the cops have to face bodily harm due to that bitch? The tazer will do no permenant damage to her.

[Foo]

here come the taser death figures!...

[[xeno]Julios]

She is sitting in the car. Ignition is on the right side of the steering column. He has to lean in, reach around her, and get them out. At this point she could gauge his eyes, bite him (ear is always a good target for that), burn him with a cigaratte lighter from the car (my friend is a cop in Olympia and actually had that happen). Then he takes the cellphone, at which point she can spit in his face - once the spit is in his eyes, she could headbutt, bite, claw, grab his throat, bite his nose, scratch his face or throat.

The cop on her right could have distracted her by making a grab for the cellphone while the other reached for the keys (and it would not be a matter of reaching around her unless she leaned really far forward.

I don't see, based on the videos, that she had intentions of becoming that physically aggressive. To me, I saw a woman with her pride injured, not wanting to concede her ego. She didn't want to give in willingly, but there are other ways of forcing the situation without causing so much pain. If they were insistent on not letting her go, they should have at least tried to remove her from the car. If she became violent, then an appropriate response could have been made.

Granted, this puts the cops in more danger, but as i said, I think this should be part of the job. You have to strike a balance - it is not an all or none thing.

It'd be like saying you can break up a fight between two drunks by:

1 - get between them
2 - put them in full nelsons so they can't punch
3 - escort them outside
4 - done

[/quote]

the key difference is that in breaking up a fight, you have to inspire order out of chaos, which can be very difficult. In the car scenario, there was only the risk of chaos ensuing.

[tnf]

A couple years ago, in this city, there was a fallout because a young, deaf kid was shot by cops.
He had stolen a case of beer from a convenience store using an air pistol that looked just like an 9mm (most of you probably know the type). He was in the middle of the street, waving the gun around. The female cop was in a position behind her car yelling at him to drop the gun, and she had her gun pointed at him. The young man turned, squared the gun and aimed it right at her, and smirked. She shot him.

There was outrage from the typical groups who couldn't believe that the situation ended this way - saying that she should have noticed his hearing aids (as if somehow that would have made pointing a gun at a cop OK.) Then they went off about how it was 'just an air gun' (although i guarantee none of them would have been able to tell the difference from 30 feet at dusk).

Bottom line - the cops will never win. They are always in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation because people are more concerned with the safety of criminals than they are with the safety of the men and women whose job it is to protect us (and, like it or not folks, the bottom line is that they do and you should be more fucking thankful for it.) They may be assholes at times, and piss you off at times, and even be petty at times - but they are the ones who are going to be running balls out towards a situation where there is a gunman holed up firing at people, whereas everyone else is going to be running for cover.
Simple reality, but one few people seem to keep in mind these days.

[[xeno]Julios]

The tazer will do no permenant damage to her.

First off, there's no guarantee that the tazer would not kill her. As people have pointed out in this thread, there have been several taser deaths.

Secondly, the risk permanent damage is not the issue. It is the inflicting of severe harm in the form of severe pain that is the issue.

[R00k]

I would agree that the second tasering (I didn't realize he did it a second time) was overboard. The initial tasering, however, was still justified IMHO (read my post at the end of 7.)

Yea, I hadn't watched the full video (only the first one posted) until now. It gives a better idea of the situation and the attitudes and tension involved.
To me, after watching it, the officer seemed to be escalating the situation from the beginning, instead of making an attempt to calm the situation down. A peaceful end to the stop was never possible from the way he approached it in the beginning.

And again, I'm not saying she wasn't in the wrong -- I'm not even saying that the bitch didn't deserve it -- but that it is not right for a cop to use violent force unless it is necessary. And in this case, the officer's language and actions were a textbook case of how to make any confrontation escalate.

In my job, it would be a nice luxury to not have to be polite, to be able to immediately antagonize any of my users, knowing that I have the upper hand and have nothing to lose by it. But I obviously can't do that because I would face repercussions from it.

Cops have a hard time and a hard job and I know this. But IMHO, when they project their fears and bad experiences on every citizen they approach, and make situations worse with no attempt to negotiate the situation, they should be reprimanded internally by their superiors and shown that the right way to handle paranoid, frantic people is not by increasing their apprehension, raising the chances of a violent encounter.

But since things like this get tons of bad publicity, it turns into a black-and-white matter of who was right and wrong and, inevitably, the final decision is that the criminal was wrong, which means the officer was right, and things like this continue to happen, and more and more officers wind up creating the violent situations they should be working to avoid.

A good friend I've had since high school has been a cop for about 5 years now, and the training they are receiving today is becoming more and more like military training -- anyone they pull over is considered the enemy for purposes of the officer's safety; and this is in a tiny town in the country. So what happens is, every peaceful citizen in that community is being treated like the most hardened criminal in that community -- i.e., the rationale that the actions of one bad apple have ruined it for the rest of us, and that is okay.

[inolen]

The tazer will do no permenant damage to her.

First off, there's no guarantee that the tazer would not kill her. As people have pointed out in this thread, there have been several taser deaths.

Secondly, the risk permanent damage is not the issue. It is the inflicting of severe harm in the form of severe pain that is the issue.

What about the risk of her inphlicting severe damage upon them?

[[xeno]Julios]

A couple years ago, in this city, there was a fallout because a young, deaf kid was shot by cops.
He had stolen a case of beer from a convenience store using an air pistol that looked just like an 9mm (most of you probably know the type). He was in the middle of the street, waving the gun around. The female cop was in a position behind her car yelling at him to drop the gun, and she had her gun pointed at him. The young man turned, squared the gun and aimed it right at her, and smirked. She shot him.

And would say she made the right decision, tragic as it may have been.

I don't have anything against cops. A few of us actually got busted by some cops last night since we were having an open fire on the beaches, and drinking. They were incredibly cool about it, laughing with us, and showing some real sympathy (they felt obligated to break up our fire since there were a bunch of teenagers further down doing similar things including fight club antics, and they didn't want to give preferential treatment to us just coz we were older).

I've also seen extreme prejudice and violence (toward friends) by cops who were obviously racist, so i'm not naive about certain realities. But I don't have a prejudice toward cops at all, and I can say that with more certitude than I can about my attitudes toward other races.

[tnf]

@jules -

I can see your point on a philosphical leve. I am just going to tell you that my own personal experience dealing with large, pissed off women (at the bar where I worked, not on dates :P ) gives me an entirely different take on the whole thing.
I am drawing my opinion based on my own experiences in situations somewhat similar (hell, we've even had to subdue a lady that we cut off).
It is probably a bit of a cliched argument - but I can gaurantee that if you have been personally involved in situations like those I dealt with 5 years ago, you'd be looking at this situation much, much differently. Or maybe not.

Anyhow, this is not going to be resolved for that simple reason. I can't force you to see the world through the lenses that I see it with (lenses that incorporate all those experiences that we don't share) and you can't force me to look at it through the lenses you do (lenses that would require me to literally forget my own experiences.)
That pretty much applies to any debate, though.

[tnf]

A good friend I've had since high school has been a cop for about 5 years now, and the training they are receiving today is becoming more and more like military training -- anyone they pull over is considered the enemy for purposes of the officer's safety; and this is in a tiny town in the country. So what happens is, every peaceful citizen in that community is being treated like the most hardened criminal in that community -- i.e., the rationale that the actions of one bad apple have ruined it for the rest of us, and that is okay.

I think that is a bit of a stretch (treating everyone like hardened criminals). I've only been pulled over once, but I've been with many people that have been pulled over, and I can think of only 1 time where I thought the cop was a little rude.

Although, I think that the way society has changed (there have been some infamous incidents of violence against officers during routine stops in the last 10 years) has required that cops take a more direct approach to gaining control of every situation in a more abrupt manner.

[R00k]

Also, police officers' extremely low pay is a huge problem. On one side, people say that danger is a part of their job, and they accepted that when they signed up. But on the other side, they don't get paid nearly enough to compensate for that kind of risk.

If the streets of our cities are to be considered a war zone, with the dangers of being killed at every stop light, then why not give cops war zone pay? I guess for that matter, we should also give them carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later. What, technically, is the difference between the boundaries of an officer's actions here at home, and our soldiers' directives in Iraq right now?

[[xeno]Julios]

What about the risk of her inphlicting severe damage upon them?

what about the probability of that risk. I didn't see that probability as reflecting a need to take that risk seriously enough to use taser force.

The threat of taser force was made to coerce her into putting her cellphone down and complying.

think about that.

The attitude is:

"Do what I say, or I'll cause you severe pain"

not

"If you threaten anyone's physical security I'll have to cause you severe pain"

[tnf]

The tazer will do no permenant damage to her.

First off, there's no guarantee that the tazer would not kill her. As people have pointed out in this thread, there have been several taser deaths.

Secondly, the risk permanent damage is not the issue. It is the inflicting of severe harm in the form of severe pain that is the issue.

What about the risk of her inphlicting severe damage upon them?

Everyone here seems to have assumed that that is an impossibilty. Remember, civilians, especially large women, are not the highly trained like the cops are, and thus really don't pose much risk.

[tnf]

What about the risk of her inphlicting severe damage upon them?

what about the probability of that risk. I didn't see that probability as reflecting a need to take that risk seriously enough to use taser force.

The threat of taser force was made to coerce her into putting her cellphone down and complying.

think about that.

The attitude is:

"Do what I say, or I'll cause you severe pain"

not

"If you threaten anyone's physical security I'll have to cause you severe pain"

Again, by her not getting out of the car willingly, she was in a position to threaten people's physical security. Refer back to taking off in her van or hurting the cops when the tried to pull her out.

[tnf]

Also, police officers' extremely low pay is a huge problem. On one side, people say that danger is a part of their job, and they accepted that when they signed up. But on the other side, they don't get paid nearly enough to compensate for that kind of risk.

If the streets of our cities are to be considered a war zone, with the dangers of being killed at every stop light, then why not give cops war zone pay? I guess for that matter, we should also give them carte blanche to shoot first and ask questions later. What, technically, is the difference between the boundaries of an officer's actions here at home, and our soldiers' directives in Iraq right now?

Same thing goes for teacher pay. Politicians give lip service to the importance of education (like that fucking No Child Left Behind bullshit) yet, a starting teacher in this state (at baseline salary without extra education or graduate degrees) with a family of 4 will make almost $5000 under the poverty line (ignoring benefits).

It's a joke.

[[xeno]Julios]

It is probably a bit of a cliched argument - but I can gaurantee that if you have been personally involved in situations like those I dealt with 5 years ago, you'd be looking at this situation much, much differently. Or maybe not.

You're almost certainly right. I believe a lot of our attitudes are shaped by our experiences, without our knowledge.

Perhaps my lack of experience has rendered my judgement such that I underestimate certain risks.

I still feel, based on everything I saw in that video, that the threat and use of taser was primarily not in response to risks, but rather in response to uncooperativeness.