72yr old grandma gets tazered

[Maurice]

Typical standard is 'minimum force necessary'.

 

[clifp]

The President says we need to contain our health care cost, at 72 she is entering the most expensive health care phase and she is also collecting social security.

Forget the taser, just use a gun on the nasty old lady and be done with her.

 

[PX4sc40sw]

Yep, back in the day most smart cops had a throw-down gun and hey, if she drew on him with a Saturday night special, he did what he had to do. Case closed.

Bet ole grandpa would thank him.

The President says we need to contain our health care cost, at 72 she is entering the most expensive health care phase and she is also collecting social security.

Forget the taser, just use a gun on the nasty old lady and be done with her.

 

[ziggy29]

Typical standard is 'minimum force necessary'.

That's a worthwhile standard to aim for, but in the heat of the moment when faced with an escalating situation, with a belligerent citizen resisting arrest and with a busy highway just behind you, I think it's pretty hard to fault an officer for using a little more force than this standard would ideally dictate.

 

[ERD50]

Homework assignment for those passing judgment on the officers:

Ride in a squad for a week. Then tell us how you feel about it.


-ERD50

 

[harley]

Every cop I've talk to says that they don't cut good looking chicks any slack. One even told me he is more inclined to give them a ticket on theory that good looking girls already get away with too much stuff.

Yeah, and they also tell me they don't have ticket or arrest quotas.

 

[Leonidas]

Typical standard is 'minimum force necessary'.

I don't know what you mean by typical standard, I was referencing (in a very simplified way) the standards that the Supreme Court has set for us in the use of force.

There are confusing "standards" out there crafted by people who don't understand that the law changed 20 years ago, or by elected officials and/or police administrators who have elected to craft local law and policy that is the result of that confusion or deliberately more restrictive for some other reason.

My admittedly over-simplified description of determining if force is excessive or not is based on the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Connor in 1989. The Graham case carved out a particular piece of case law in a deliberate change from older standards to be applied when it came to the very type of interactions we have been discussing here.

Graham identified the use of force in arrests, detentions and searches as a 4th Amendment issue. Other governmental uses of force are governed under different case law and rely on other parts of the Constitution.

Here is what Graham set out:

The 4th amendment clarifies our rights to not be subject to unreasonable seizures of our person and stuff.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

There are volumes of discussion about what is "reasonable" in search and seizure that you can find elsewhere. But in Graham the Court basically said that not only is the seizure itself required to meet the legal standard of reasonable, but the means by which it accomplishes that seizure (i.e. force) must also be reasonable.

Determining whether the use of force is reasonable in any given instance requires careful balancing of " 'the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion. - Krueger v Fuehr, 8th Circuit

A seizure of a person always involves force. Even if the "force" is limited to a non-physical form (police officer telling a person to stop) there is always at least the implication that the person has to submit or face an escalation of force by the government's agent.

Besides the "force" created by a police officer's presence and commands, the Graham decision identified two additional types of force: Deadly force and all other physical force less than deadly force. While Graham sets out a lot of rules about how these cases are to be decided, it and all the related cases focus on when it is appropriate to move from one range of force to another. In other words, when is it appropriate to move upward from non-physical "force" to physical force, and from physical force to deadly force.

Graham doesn't make distinctions between tools, tactics or techniques within the three categories. No difference between a politely worded command and a shouted one - they're both types of non-physical force. The same for differences between baton strikes, karate kicks, pepper spray or a set of handcuffs - all are examples of non-deadly physical force. There is no rule on when to use a pistol vs. a shotgun, it's all deadly force to them.

One of our prior District Attorneys here, a man who didn't shy away from prosecuting anybody who needed it, including cops who were in the wrong, was frequently asked to comment about the number of times a suspect was shot by an officer or citizen. His response was always the same; "If you're justified in using deadly force there is no difference between one shot or five. They're all deadly. You only have to stop when you're no longer justified in using deadly force."

Graham does talk about when you have to reverse course and move backward from deadly force to physical force, to non-physical, and to no force. You've got to stop shooting or striking them with a baton when the threat has reduced to the point where that level of force is no longer justified by the suspect's actions.

What Graham does not require an officer to use a lower level of force than what is reasonable. In California an officer shot and killed a suspect when confronted with deadly force. The widow sued, and among her claims were that even if the police were justified in using deadly force, they could have used other means, non-deadly physical force, to subdue her husband. In other words, she claimed they had an obligation to use the "minimum force necessary." The 8th Circuit, relying on Graham, denied her claim,

There is no precedent in this Circuit (or any other) which says that the Constitution requires law enforcement officers to use all feasible alternatives to avoid a situation where deadly force can justifiably be used. There are, however, cases which support the assertion that, where deadly force is otherwise justified under the Constitution, there is no constitutional duty to use non-deadly alternatives first...The Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the least intrusive or even less intrusive alternatives in search and seizure cases. The only test is whether what the police officers actually did was reasonable. We do not believe the Fourth Amendment requires the use of the least or even a less deadly alternative so long as the use of deadly force is reasonable under Garner v. Tennessee and Graham v. Connor, supra.

 

[Maurice]

Strawman alert! You're putting my words in the widow's mouth. If the officers were confronted with deadly force, I think the minimum force necessary would be a response in kind. (at least in most situations)


But I'm happy to judge this based on a 4th amendment standard of 'reasonableness' as opposed to the english common law minimum force principle.

Either way, I'm left with the question of why this 250lb guy couldn't get a pair of handcuffs on a great grandmother.

 

[Maurice]

Homework assignment for those passing judgment on the officers:

Ride in a squad for a week. Then tell us how you feel about it.


-ERD50

Point noted, but irrelevant. There are good reasons why police behaviour is governed by legislatures and courts, not by the police themselves.

 

[Maurice]

Armchair quarterbacking.........

Is there another purpose for this thread? Its a personal finance website, not a police review board.

What post here isn't armchair quarterbacking? Why single mine out?

 

[PX4sc40sw]

Actually, I think the website is about Early Retirement. You may be thinking of MSNBC.

Is there another purpose for this thread? Its a personal finance website, not a police review board.

What post here isn't armchair quarterbacking? Why single mine out?

 

[ERD50]

Point noted, but irrelevant. There are good reasons why police behaviour is governed by legislatures and courts, not by the police themselves.

I don't think any of the Law Enforcement people here suggest that police should self-regulate in these matters. Guidelines are needed, and they are not above the law either.

But when I compare the responses of those condemning the police action to those from the people with Law Enforcement experience, I sense that the condemners are lacking experience in these matters. And that experience would likely change their views. It is relevant. It reminds me of when people outside my field of expertise make some wild statement" why don't they just.....", and my knowledge helps me to KNOW that "just" doing that is not feasible. Those people lack knowledge/experience - everything seems easy to them, since they do not understand the restrictions (basic physics sometimes).

For reference, I've had two times where police acted like jerks; a few times where they did their job, but they certainly could have been nicer about it; and the rest of the time they were helpful and professional, sensitive even.

I'll leave it at this:

Do Police sometimes overstep their bounds? I am certain they do, and it needs to be dealt with severely.

Do those videos indicate police abuse? Questionable, IMO. But it is unquestionable that the citizen created a problem with their attitude, actions, and by not following orders. Just no sympathy from me (only for the cops that have to deal with this). And, if those are the "worst" that the condemners have to offer, I think the situation is better than I would expect, given human nature and people being put in a position of power.

-ERD50

 

[Maurice]

I would argue that, in a democracy, the citizens' judgment of police behaviour is ultimately more relevant than the judgment of fellow officers.


That's not to say that we should subject all incidents to popular review, rather, I'm just saying that the citizens' acceptance of the police departments use of force guidelines is the root of its legitimacy.


(edit: again, i mean in a democracy)

 

[CuppaJoe]

....
Forget the taser, just use a gun on the nasty old lady and be done with her.

Something like that happened in Oakland BART station on New Year's Day and they won't be done with the case for a long long time. Here a local barkeep suggests a way to help address budget problems. (FWIW, I have no opinion on whether excessive force was used Texas).

 

[ERD50]

I would argue that, in a democracy, the citizens' judgment of police behaviour is ultimately more relevant than the judgment of fellow officers.

I agree. And it was not the judgment from the LEOs in this thread that spoke the loudest to me, it was their explanation and reasoning and insight that they shared.

If they had just said "IMO, the cop did the right thing", with no explanation, it would not carry any more weight than a random citizen saying the opposite.

Even if I never saw the video or knew anything about the situation, based on the comments I read here, I would tend to side with the LEOs - they provided reasons, rather than just condemnation or support. I apply that to anything I read, and it's served me well. You are certainly free to express your opinion on the matter, but don't expect to sway anyone w/o some reasoning behind it.

-ERD50

 

[Maurice]

No one here is going to be swayed one way or another. We're all too old.

 

[W2R]

No one here is going to be swayed one way or another. We're all too old.

I think that is completely correct. At least, I know that I am a lot more set in my ways than I was forty years ago.

 

[PX4sc40sw]

I would have preferred the officer take off his badge, put down his weapons and make it a fair fight.

Bare knuckles, Marcus of Queensberry rules, but require a tap out.

Would have been more palatable.

 

[ERD50]

No one here is going to be swayed one way or another. We're all too old.

Perhaps. And perhaps we do get more set in our ways as we age, but that could be attributed to a bigger database of experience. I know that I will change my opinion when presented with reasonable evidence - in fact I welcome it, I call it "learning". The day I stop learning is what I would call the day I die, even if my body is still semi-functional.

But I worded it poorly - I really don't think this thread is about swaying anyone's opinion (actually, I'm not sure *what* this thread is about - but I've learned a thing or two, so it is all good), but....

when Jambo referred to others as "sad" because they saw it differently from him, that's where I have to say I will fall back on reasoned information, rather than just the emotional "OMG, he tazered a Grandma!" reaction. But people see things differently, it's what makes the world go around, and it makes markets (time for a financial reference, no?).

Take care -ERD50

 

[CuppaJoe]

No one here is going to be swayed one way or another. We're all too old.

Have to agree with this. I expressed my lack of opinion almost three hours ago, and haven't developed one yet.

 

[REWahoo]

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"

This thread has become repetitive and circular and has, in the judgment of the moderation team, run its course.