It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal court restricts Taser use by police

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Federal court restricts Taser use by police


www.latimes.com

A federal appeals court this week ruled that a California police officer can be held liable for injuries suffered by an unarmed man he Tasered during a traffic stop. The decision, if allowed to stand, would set a rigorous legal precedent for when police are permitted to use the weapons and would force some law enforcement agencies throughout the state -- and presumably the nation -- to tighten their policies governing Taser use, experts said.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.mercurynews.com




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   


"The court got it right: The officer has to have some immediate threat to use it," City Attorney Rick Doyle said.

Lawyers in two pending lawsuits contending San Jose police improperly used their Tasers said the court ruling would bolster their allegations of excessive force by San Jose police officers.

www.mercurynews.com...

Happy new year! Tasers are no longer the easy way to end a conflict for Police Officers. We will still see more victims of taser abuse, but when punishment becomes more common, they will atleast thing twice before using it.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 12/30/09 by Cyprex]

[edit on 12/30/09 by Cyprex]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Related Video




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I did not really like it when the tazer, along with other non leathel weapons came into use. Non leathel means it is supose to be used with out causing leathel damage. That is not always the case, and it means it will cause great pain. But because it is non leathel it mean it may be used more often then something that could be leathel. Weather being done on purpose or not. Because of that I just prefer if a police officer is to use a weapon, I would rather it be the intent that deadly force is being used.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyprex
 


Great now they can resume shooting people again, So wwould you like to be tased or shot?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Cyprex
 


Great now they can resume shooting people again, So wwould you like to be tased or shot?


If you had read the article you would not have to ask a loaded question.

Remember, the positive in this ruling, is they will not simply use a taser on you for going into the fetal position for resisting arrest. This is just a simple example.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
GOOD! About time, They first should have done that a while back... oh well it doesnt matter, they still will do it and get away with it in court.

tased, shot....and you forget about getting the crap beat out of you



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
First off a taser is a LESS LETHAL option for us. It is not and has NEVER been a NON lethal option. Second, this ruling may SEEM good in the eyes of those not educated in the use of a taser, or those never put in situations where a taser is the most effective way to end a situation. Also, for those who THINK (because you sure don't actually know) a taser is to be used only when a gun should be used is about the dumbest thing I have ever read, and I read that ALOT on this site.

I agree that the taser has been abused by SOME officers. There is no denying that. My concern is the lack of experiance PEOPLE have with situations that NEED a taser, and without that experiance, how can you say what from the comfort of your computer chair, that the officer shoulda, woulda, coulda????

This ruling will do two things.

1. It will make those appossed to the taser happy, but they will not think about the ACTUAL change this brings. Now when an officer is faced with a situation you will see the stats of shootings and physical injuries of suspects go up. With that said, are you guys now going to bitch about that as well? Sure you will. People will find something they do not like (for whatever reason) and complain about it, protest it, etc...and do anything they must to get rid of it. But they never think about what that leads to. Then when they get their wish and that "thing" is taken away they celebrate, just to be "shocked" that now something new is occuring and their pissed off about that too.

2. It will cost citizens. When stuff happens and officers respond, especially younger officers (time on the force), they WILL hesitate. That hesitation does one of three things. Its cost the officer their life, It costs the victim their life, or it allows for the completion of a crime that would of otherwise been stopped. Its just human nature to hesitate when your told if you do things a certain way you'll be held responsible, especially if your used to doing something that way.

Bottom line is, tasers DO have a purpose and play a VERY important roll. I know this because I have deployed my taser 7 times this month. In all 7 situations it defused the problem and stopped tragedy. I am still old fashioned in a way too, I don't mind going hands on with a suspect, but in todays society even that draws citisism.

[edit on 12/30/2009 by rcwj1975]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj1975
 


I must give you a star for that.


There will always be people that like the police and support them, and there will always be those who abhor them to the fullest extent and rebel against, whether it through words, text, disobedience, and/or violence against officers themselves, or citizens as a protest against the law. This is true for many things like government, war, the use of money, and just about anything to do with religion or anything controversial in the eyes of the media and the people at-large.

I support the police in most situations, 9 times out of 10; I support the use of the taser as another option to subdue an unruly suspect rather than wrestling said suspect to the ground, which could injure both the officer and the suspect.

This ruling will do nothing but, like RC said, raise the injury rate and use of violence seeing how the least physical option to hand-to-hand and less lethal option to the gun is going to be used less.

[sarcasm]
Good job people, you won.

[/sarcasm]

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Bushido Kanji]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Cyprex
 


Good find, i wonder what new weapons they will make for less-lethal use on human-beings.

Maybe they should look into vibration less-lethal weapons.

[edit on 30-12-2009 by Quickfix]


MBF

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I'm glad to see this. There are way too many cops that are way too quick to use a taser. They have done it to themselves. Any cop that can't handle a little 70 year old lady or 10 year old kid without using one doesn't have any business with the job.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MBF
 


I actually agree MBF. I see and read about officers tasing kids or the elderly and it makes me shake my head. But I can tell you the number of negative incidents vs the number of good use incidents aren't even close. But like anything else the negative will ALWAYS get the attention.

But this ruling is still not the best thing.

[edit on 12/30/2009 by rcwj1975]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
More ideas to keep crooked cops in line. Head-mounted Cameras.

Police in San Jose, California are testing head-mounted cameras to record interactions with the public. As AP's Haven Daley reports, the test comes as citizens' groups criticize the department for too often using force during arrests.



MBF

posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
There are good cops and there are bad cops. The good ones have to put up with a lot of crap caused by the bad ones. I like the helmet cam. That way there is no question as to what has happened and keeps everybody honest. Unfortunately, evidence like this that is against the bad cop will "go missing". I've seen things like this happen before.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
The case from which this ruling arises though was not in any way diffusing a dangerous situation. The unanimous ruling found that the officer tazed the man during a stop for a seat belt violation. The man had no weapons, made no movement towards the officer, made no threats, and wasn't in fact near him. The officer's defence was that he "felt" that he was in danger, yet the jury found that there was absolutely no objective facts in the case which would have indicated this. The ruling states that officers must have objective reasons for employing this technology, and none found that a "reasonable" officer would have used it under the circumstances. Had he won, he would have had blanket immunity for his actions, as it is, the civil suit brought about by the tazee will continue.

According to Amnesty International, over 350 people have died as a direct result of this non-lethal device. And we have seen time and time again how it has been used as a form of punishment for pissing off the cop /security guard, or for forcing instant compliance even when the person is simply arguing his rights. Which is NOT the same thing as a personal threat to the officer or others!



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join