Uh....

That depends.

Law enforcement are trained to not only "work in the moment". You better hope and pray the majority of law enforcement officers are not trained to do WHATEVER they think works in the moment. We do not want a system in which law enforcement are only trained to give an afterthought rather than a before-and-during thought. That is how forms of profiling and police brutality occur.

You are making assumptions on variables that don't apply for every situation.

Like I said, I know that not all cops are good, nor are they all bad. They are all trained to use deadly force, if necessary. Whether they are bad cops or not, they've been given that responsibility. If it is found that unnecessary force was used, then the cop will suffer the consequences.

If a cop has been called to a potentially dangerous situation the cop wants to neutralize the danger first. Its not always just about the cop and the perpetrator. There may be other innocent by-standers.

No, I am telling you that law enforcement training and procedures are about more than what (appears to) "works in the moment."

True. Their training does give them a guide for follow for different situations. But, they actually don't know how the situation will "go down" until they arrive at the scene and assess what is happening. That is what I mean by they have to do what "works in the moment".

Last week here, a bunch of cops showed up to a house because the report came in that a man and a woman had been shot in the house. People heard the shots, called the cops, and the cops arrived with the assumption that a murder / robbery had taken place. Once the situation calmed down, it turned out the man who was shot suffered an accidental self-inflicted gun shot and his daughter-in-law, who has standing behind him apparently, was shot too.

Now, given that the cops have been trained to deal with break ins and shootings, and that is what they thought they were dealing with, that is how they initially approached this incident. Since the parameters of the incident changed, the cops changed their approach. They dealt with the situation based on that moment.

So, yes, cops have been given training and procedures to follow. And, they are also given the ability to use their judgment to assess how best to proceed.

Don't we all like it when we get stopped by a cop for a traffic violation, and he or she lets us off with a warning instead of getting a ticket?

By what you are saying, based on the training of the cop, he /she has every right to give us a ticket. Its the law, its his / her job. But, after talking to us, and realizing that we meant no "harm", he / she lets us go. The cop made a judgment in that moment.

I'm not sure I follow -- how can it depend for the police if a 12-year-old child shouldn't get tased to begin with?

Not absurd at all. Courts do it all the time, deciding when and under what circumstances certain offensive or defensive measures can be taken. Ditto police departments, which set forth policies providing officers with parameters as to when they can and can't do what.

Sure, there will always be the need to apply those parameters to specific situations and "in the moment." But the parameters are still there, and I think that's the question posed by this thread: Not was this specific officer in the right or in the wrong, but what should the parameters be?

The bolded is obvious. Law enforcement training and procedures are a foundation and not all foundations operate with 100% certainty. Law enforcement officers are not trained in how to deal with every potential circumstance. For instance, there are jurisdictions that still do not provide training for dealing with people who are suicidal and people who have mental health conditions and learning disabilities.

The point is that law enforcement officers cannot overlook training, procedure, and do whatever their mind tells them to do solely based on what might work in the moment.

You are all over the place but here goes....

Police officers in many jurisdictions are given discretion to determine whether to pull someone over for a traffic violation and whether to administer a ticket or simply a warning. Their training and procedures in many jurisdictions tell the officers about this discretion and also when such discretion can be overriden by legal factors (i.e., warrants, reckless driving, drug possession, etc.) and extralegal factors (i.e., physical or mental disparities that can make driving harmful).

In contrast, many Highway Patrol officers state "we give tickets, not warnings" which means in some jurisdictions they were trained (and their policies and procedures dictate) to give traffic tickets 100% of the time that they pull someone over, particularly because many Highway Patrol officers only pull people over for reckless driving (i.e., 10+ above speed limit, being on the phone when driving, etc.). Therefore the discretion would come in whether to pull the person over in the first place rather than whether the person will get a ticket.

Depends on what the 12 year old was doing.

If it is a kid at the play ground, and this kid gets in a shoving match with another kid, then no, the aggressor of the shoving match should not get tased.

If this same kid escalates the incident and brings a gun to the park with the intent to use it, then the least the cop should do is tase the kid to stop him or her from trying to use deadly force.

That is what I mean by "depends", it just depends on the nature of the situation.


Absurd in the context to which this has been discussed in this thread. The initial comment presented is that a 12 year old kid should not get tased. But, apparently there were extenuating circumstances in this case.

Then if this is the actual point to this thread, then we are debating an issue that has as many answers as people you can ask. In other words, it can be "infinite".

(Of course, the actual sub-text is that we are to simply agree and support whatever assessment DrPhil has made of this situation, but not everyone will see it her way. ;))

Maybe, but the way I see it, you are trying to force extreme absolutes on situations that can vary greatly.

No, it cannot be "infinite".

What are you ranting about now?

You either have not read this thread or do not understand what you read.

No, law enforcement cannot act solely based on variation and what may work in any given moment.

You know me, just bitchmoaningandgroanin'. :p


Like I said, they also have the ability to use their judgment.

Their judgment and discretion are not "infinite". If you acknowlege that then we can stop going around in circles.

Now, I'm still perplexed by:

No, I was not saying that their judgment is "infinite".

I was responding to MC when he said that the point of this thread is to examine the parameters of when I cop should tase a 12 yr old. At least that is what I understood.

My response to that was, for as many people as you can ask, you can get that many parameters. After all, that is what we are discussing, right?

And, to think about it, it would not be infinite either. It is limited to the number of people on earth.

I explained that in my response to MC on the previous page. ;)

Controlling for policies, procedures, training, legal code, and intelligence:


The answers are not "infinite."

Forreal, sigmadiva? Wow.

I already read that. If unarmed children shoving on a playground versus children who bring a gun to the playground is your only model for police procedures on children then you clearly can only operate based on extremes.

But if it depends, then why did you say "Should a 12 year old child get tased? No?" That's the part that confuses me?


Seems pretty simple to me: If your local police department was going to review its policies concerning tasing or adopt new policies, what do you think the official policies should be:

• There are no circumstances under which a 12-year-old should be tased;
• A 12-year-old should not be tased unless the police officer first determines [list criteria here] and gives a clear warning;
• It should be left to a police officer's discretion to determine whether, under the cirsumstances, a 12-year-old should be tased; or
• Some other option.

So, first what confused you was when I said "depends", and I explained what I meant by that.

Now, its the simple answer to a simple question.

Okay, here goes:

Should a cop, with no justifiable reason, walk up to some random, 12 year old kid, and tase him or her, for no reason. No. But, that is how I see it.

Clear now?

Actually, here in Houston, we just went through a similar situation with car chases. When should a cop chase a suspect in the car.

The answer is: as long as innocent life / by standers will not get hurt. It is a judgment that is left up to the cop.

You are right, policies need to be reviewed and critically examined on a regular basis. But even the best policy review can not account for every possible situation that may, or may not, occur in a given situation.

The only way law enforcement can satisfy the parameters that you and DrPhil are proposing is if we can predict the future. If so, then we can work in
absolutes. Since we can't predict the future, we are left with what we currently have - doing the best we can with the most current knowledge.

Forreal, sigmadiva? Wow.

The common sentiment is that NO ONE (adult or child) should be tasered at random and for no justisfiable reason. If that is the depth of your capacity for discourse regarding this topic then please spare us.

Keep that in mind when a law enforcement officer pulls you over and, instead of telling you what you were pulled over for, physically forces you to get out of the car and searches your vehicle. Surely you will be understanding because...HEY...we cannot predict the future and cannot work in absolutes.

To hell with policies, procedures, the law, rights, etc.

No, that's not what confused me. What confused me is that you first provided this question and answer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sigmadiva (Post 2164550) Should a 12 year old child get tased? No.

And then provided this question and answer:

Quote:

Should a 12 year old child get tased by the police? Depends.

I'm just trying to see how the two answers fit together. If you've already said, without qualification, that a 12-year old should not get tased, then how do you even get to the second question about police officers?

Yes, the mother of a friend of mine was killed when a police officer, following that standard, was pursuing a suspect.

You suggest below that I'm trying to predict the future, but that's exactly what the standard you provide here does. There's no way a police officer can know that no innocent bystanders will be killed or hurt, and that would be an unworkable standard. A workable standard is that the police officer reasonably believes that the chase can be undertaken without endangering others and does all that he can to insure that others aren't endangered. It might still happen, but if so, it shouldn't be because the officer wasn't at least trying to minimize the chances.

I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to predict the future at all, nor am I suggesting absolutes or policies so detailed that they cover every possible scenario. I'm saying that workable policies, for the protection of the police officer as much as the protection of the public, lay out the basic rules, such as the one I suggested way upthread: A police officer should not tase a 12-year-old unless (1) that officer reasonably believes that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the 12-year-old from harming him- or herself, the officer or others; and (2) the officer gives a clear warning that he or she will use the taser.

It is then up to the officer to apply those criteria in specific circumstances, and it is up to reviewing entities, if necessary, to determine whether the officer applied those criteria correctly -- for example, to determine whether the officer's belief that the 12-year-old was about to harm him- or herself or others was a reasonable belief under the circumstances.

This assumes that the subject can be positively ID'd as 12, doesn't it? Especially for females, and I'll bet cross-racial IDs are even worse, telling the difference between a 12 year old and a 15-16 year old is not something which can be easily done.

Police officers aren't engaged in an age-guessing endeavor when they are arresting a suspect. They are responsible for their own safety first and second for the person they're placing into custody.

Such a progression probably isn't reasonable under all or even most circumstances. Your suggestion assumes the LEO has information which he typically doesn't have.

Well, knowing that this can go on all day, and well into the night. And, I feel that I've explained my position "six ways from Sunday", then there is really nothing more that I can say.

Toodles! :)

Police can generally determine that a person is under the age of 18 and there are procedures to guess the age range (if not the exact age) if no ID is present.

Police officers are engaged in a number of things which includes gauging age range. That is one of the ways in which truancy, legal drinking age, and runaway laws and practices have always been possible both with and without an identification card.

You did this flounce nonsense in the Chick-Fil-A thread. You can stop posting without announcing as such. This thread existed before you posted and will exist after you stop posting.

Valid point -- I think I probably got sucked into the title of the tread on that one by focusing on 12-year-olds, and I wasn't really meaning to do that. If a policy is going to start with a premise that absent certain circumstances, a child (or minor) shouldn't be tased, than a workable policy would certainly need to take into account in some way the officer's ability to tell or make reasonable judgments about a person's age. As DrPhil notes, this wouldn't be new.

Really?

I'm sure DrPhil would be happy with the explanation that oops, the officer made a cross-racial age ID and thought she was in fact 4-5 years older than she actually was and oops, tased her. Simple mistake, right?

Definitely, the age of the subject should be a factor, but I wouldn't put it anywhere near the top. The size and behavior of the subject would be paramount as well as any other surrounding circumstances.

As Jerry Sandusky said, age is just a number. (too soon?)

I don't really see the point of this discussion given the fact that policies are already in place stating that tasers shouldn't be used on minors. These child tasing incidents are rare and like I said upthread, "shouldn't be used" doesn't mean "absolutely no fuckin way, let the 12 year old kill an officer before even thinking of tasing her". This officer will have to justify why he did what he did, but he isn't automatically in the wrong for doing it. There is no such thing as a "standard" arrest because every situation has different variables and officers need to to adapt and adjust to every situation.

ETA- FLOUNCE!lol

Those kinds of mistakes happen. The 12 year old in this thread looks very 12. Therefore, many children under the age of 18 look under the age of 18. Those who do not are more the exception. We would not have status offenses if the age range (not the exact age) of children was unlikely to be determined at face value, by talking to the person, and/or contacting family. Ninety or more percent of the time children, girls having a higher rate than boys, under the age of 18 are "obviously" under a certain age and can be arrested for status offenses. Status offenses would not be as common as they are in some jurisdictions is they were difficult to detect.

Sandusky learned that age is not just a number.

This is a general discussion, not just about that specific 12 year old, and what constitutes discretion is always up for discussion.

Police officers cannot adapt and adjust to the point where they violate policies and the law. There are some things that are considered "standard."

I don't think anyone in this thread suggested that the police should do that at all. I know I didn't. Some things such as administrative policies (pay, vacation) and civil rights laws are "set in stone" but many policies involving actual field police work are not set in stone but act as more an official guideline to follow giving consideration to the officers discretion. No two situations are the same so to even suggest that a single "standard" policy can and should cover everything under the sun is ludicrous. Police need room to adjust and adapt.

Sure she looks 12, but if you told me she was 15, I'd have taken your word at it just as I did briefly from other sources before I did my own checking.

As far as status offenses, that's a different thing entirely which takes into account the child's age and maturity at a certain level as to whether that child could, for example, content to sexual contact as in statutory rape situations or as to whether the child deserves to be prosecuted as an adult. Here we have a totally different situation where you're asking a police officer to make a snap decision judgment call in which if he does not pull that trigger, he puts his own life and limb in jeopardy.

So yes, as to status offenses, we admit kids can be kids. Of course in an instant when an adult police officer judges that kid to be an imminent threat, I don't begrudge that officer his or her use of reasonable force.

As to what is reasonable, I don't know here. Until more facts come out, considering the mother is a convicted felon several times over, I'm likely to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. I could change my mind though if more came to light.

Touché.

Then you can understand why there always has been and always will be discussions of police practices and how far police are able to adjust and adapt. That is what some of us are doing.


Still under the age of 18 which is why this is about age range as much as exact age.

Different folks develop so differently that even 18 is a pretty arbitrary number when you get right down to it. How many restrictions do you want to place on officers in the field? Can you get them to go through umpteen mental checklists before deploying their taser while some hysterical little person is bullrushing them for attempting to make a lawful arrest? Especially when other adults are interfering? I don't really think so.

Step back and look at the whole situation instead of individual little factors. Was the officer outnumbered at least 3:1? Was it bad enough that he placed three people in custody? Did he reasonably fear for himself if he had lost control of the situation? So far, the St. Louis P.D. has said the actions taken were appropriate.

Too soon? Uh, yeah, Jerry Sandusky aside---I'd say making light of child sex abuse is never funny. :mad:

That is what MysticCat and I (and a few others) have been trying to get everyone to do.

Funny.. all I could tell you cared about was the fact that she was a CHILD (in caps) and that apparently she wasn't white.

Because you are slow. Luckily, no one is holding you back but yourself.

Oh God yes... let's chalk this one up to white privilege or some shit without any evidence to support. That's the ticket.

--or maybe, simplest explanation being the likeliest, the cop's word should be taken over that of the multiple ex-felon... how 'bout that possibility?

You're KKKevin, so I would be surprised if you said the opposite. Have a seat dude. You're an arrogant, dumbass idiot.

What in the hell are you talking about?

He's definitely slow.

Oh how clever...

So are you also taking the drug trafficker's word over the police officer? Clearly it was white privilege that made the felon shop at an expensive undergarments store instead of paying her traffic tickets.

Clearly.

Fuck the police officer. Bottom line is dude tased a 12 year old, which was unnecessary. You're one of those mofos who doesn't give a shit about anybody but himself.