12-year-old tased by police officer

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I think that's why DrPhil keeps saying this thread is about whether it's ever okay to use a taser on a 12-year-old, and if it is, when is it okay? The question of whether the specific facts of this case show that it was or wasn't okay under whatever criteria people suggest will have to wait for another day when we have all sides of the story and fully-developed facts. (If we ever have those, that is.)

If we're keeping it that simple, then my opinion is yes it is ok to use a taser on a 12 year old who is interfering with a police officer making an arrest AS LONG AS he gave fair warning that he would tase her if she didn't stop. If he didn't warn her, then I reserve the right to change my opinion.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

If he didn't warn her, then I reserve the right to change my opinion.

Can you explain why you would change your opinion? Police do not always warn people just like they do not always warn people for pepper spray.

Originally Posted by IrishLake

Absofuckinglutely. And that girl looks just like what my own oldest daughter could look like in another 6 years.

Get the taser ready?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

If we're keeping it that simple, then my opinion is yes it is ok to use a taser on a 12 year old who is interfering with a police officer making an arrest AS LONG AS he gave fair warning that he would tase her if she didn't stop. If he didn't warn her, then I reserve the right to change my opinion.

Would it matter to you if there were less drastic means by which an officer could deal with someone interfering with an arrest? In other words, do you think the offer should reasonably believe that use of the taser is necessary to deal with the situation, or is it enough for the officer to have the discretion to use the taser (with adequate warning) any time a 12-year-old is interfering with an arrest?

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Would it matter to you if there were less drastic means by which an officer could deal with someone interfering with an arrest? In other words, do you think the offer should reasonably believe that use of the taser is necessary to deal with the situation, or is it enough for the officer to have the discretion to use the taser (with adequate warning) any time a 12-year-old is interfering with an arrest?

I guess I don't see the difference between the two? I know you rephrased it after your first question, but I'm still not getting it.

I want to answer yes to both.

[Old_Row]

Cristian Fernandez
Jasmine Richardson
Jordan Brown
Christian Romero
Mary Bell
Robert Thompson
Jon Venables


All 12 years old and under. Would it be ok for a cop to taser them during an arrest?

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by Old_Row

Cristian Fernandez
Jasmine Richardson
Jordan Brown
Christian Romero
Mary Bell
Robert Thompson
Jon Venables


All 12 years old and under. Would it be ok for a cop to taser them during an arrest?

I've googled the first three. So far, all murdered family members or in the case of Jordan Brown, his father's pregnant fiancee.

I think I know where the list is going, so I'm going to quit googling and say this: if police had caught these children in the act of harming their victims, then by all means, yes, taser the child to save the lives of those in peril. If said child was threatening the police with a deadly weapon, then yes, taser the child. Otherwise, I believe that grown people can deal with children without tasering them.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

I guess I don't see the difference between the two? I know you rephrased it after your first question, but I'm still not getting it.

LOL. That's why I shouldn't be posting when it's this late and I'm watching the Olympics.

I read in at least one source that the SLPD says whether or not to use a taser is in an officer's discretion, and I know some other PDs have a similar policy. I tend to think that it's in everybody's bet interest, including the officers, to have clear criteria for when the use of something like a taser is justified/appropriate.

So I guess I was trying to ask whether you think it's sufficient for the officer to have the discretion to use the taser -- to have the permission to choose it from among other ways of dealing with the situation as he sees fit -- or do you think he should be required to determine that he cannot effectively deal with the situation without using the taser?

Make more sense? At all?

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

LOL. That's why I shouldn't be posting when it's this late and I'm watching the Olympics.

I read in at least one source that the SLPD says whether or not to use a taser is in an officer's discretion, and I know some other PDs have a similar policy. I tend to think that it's in everybody's bet interest, including the officers, to have clear criteria for when the use of something like a taser is justified/appropriate.

So I guess I was trying to ask whether you think it's sufficient for the officer to have the discretion to use the taser -- to have the permission to choose it from among other ways of dealing with the situation as he sees fit -- or do you think he should be required to determine that he cannot effectively deal with the situation without using the taser?

Make more sense? At all?

lol. Yes, and I still want to say yes to both. I guess I'm in more agreement with the latter. Just because a cop can use a taser doesn't always mean he should.