12-year-old tased by police officer

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

...but once that initial charge goes through the average person is good to go. Typically no negative after effects either as opposed to when you pepper spray or baton someone.

Researchers and law enforcement experts continue to debate and research the lasting impact of tasing. Based on the ongoing debate and research findings on both sides of the issue, it is not absolute certain that the average person is "good to go" and with no lasting impact. Police departments often do not conduct cohort studies in which people tased in a given year are studied over periods of time. Taser studies are coming from elsewhere and there are few studies on the physical and/or mental effects on people who have been tasered and the span of time through which to examine lasting effects is still being understood. This ongoing debate and research are regarding adults. The debate is stronger for children and there is little to any research on the impact of tasering on children. The research on adults is assumed to be applicable to all humans but that is not definite.

I know that you were giving a general response about tasers to christiangirl's post but baton and pepper spray are not deemed a necessary comparison unless the research question is how tasering compares to other methods--batons and pepper spray. Instead, the research questions in this instance would be (1) is tasing appropriate for people of a young age--children (or the elderly if we were talking about older age); (2) (in line with what you were talking about in your post) does tasering have any lasting impact on the body regardless of whether the person feels pain; and (3) can the impact of tasing be different for children (or the elderly) than adults.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Researchers and law enforcement experts continue to debate and research the lasting impact of tasing. Based on the ongoing debate and research findings on both sides of the issue, it is not absolute certain that the average person is "good to go" and with no lasting impact. Police departments often do not conduct cohort studies in which people tased in a given year are studied over periods of time. Taser studies are coming from elsewhere and there are few studies on the physical and/or mental effects on people who have been tasered and the span of time through which to examine lasting effects is still being understood. This ongoing debate and research are regarding adults. The debate is stronger for children and there is little to any research on the impact of tasering on children. The research on adults is assumed to be applicable to all humans but that is not definite.

I know that you were giving a general response about tasers to christiangirl's post but baton and pepper spray are not deemed a necessary comparison unless the research question is how tasering compares to other methods--batons and pepper spray. Instead, the research questions in this instance would be (1) is tasing appropriate for people of a young age--children (or the elderly if we were talking about older age); (2) (in line with what you were talking about in your post) does tasering have any lasting impact on the body regardless of whether the person feels pain; and (3) can the impact of tasing be different for children (or the elderly) than adults.

I can't speak of any knowledge on the long term effects of tasering, other then the claims of taser manufactures that there are none. I did do some light online research into that before I was tased myself. There have been incidents where people have gone into cardiac arrest following being tased, but I read nothing about long term/short term muscle or nerve damage. I think the best focus group for any sort of study on the long term effects would be law enforcement officers since so many of them have been tased ( I'm also willing to put money down that more cops have been tased overall than civilians). Speaking from personal experience, neither I nor anyone I know of who's been tased in my region (about 600 officers) has had any issues stemming from being tased.

As for the discussion of children being tased, I have to say that children shouldn't be tased and official policies typically state that tasers shouldn't be deployed on children, the elderly, and the mentally disturbed. I must stress the fact that shouldn't be used doesn't always mean can't be used. Every situation and set of circumstances is different.

[TonyB06]

There are bias-based arguments throughout this thread. In a perfect world, no, a 12-year-old sans weapon, should never be tased. But it ain't a perfect world.

In a confrontational situation, a 12-year-old could be a threat, particularly if an officer is dealing with one or two other people at the time.

We're in Victoria Secret. I don't know if suspect was on the move or not, but perhaps the officer could have waited for back up before making the arrest?

Bias. Upthread there was some haze about what the mother was being arrested for. I suspect in the officer's mind if it was drug trafficking or some other hard (dangerous) crime he's arresting her for, he's mentally going to be more predisposed to using necessary physical force to control any situation he encounters, than if he's after a mother whose got, say, 50 parking tickets and no violent criminal record. Can I prove it? No, but that's logical to me.

I think it was Kevin who intimated as much upthread. She's wanted on drug charges? She and anybody who gets in the way is going down hard if it comes to that. Is that right? Who knows, but you do what you need to do to go home.

I do martial arts training with a law enforcement officer in my city. He's told me, if he's in physical confrontation with a woman, he may (stress may) try something less, in terms of physical control technique, than he'd go with in a full-fledged fight with a man, as long as it doesn't jeopardize his safety. So, to me, it's a sliding scale.

am I glad the girl got tased, no. But I could understand the situation if it was as harried as it sounds.

[Kevin]

Just to be clear, I suggested she had multiple drug-related felonies on her record. The most recent of those is 2009, so there's no evidence to suggest the Huffpost explanation of traffic citations is incorrect. I imagine an officer arresting a felon on outstanding warrants (even for a non-felony) is going to probably use an extra level of caution.

I'm still inclined to give the officer the benefit of the doubt.

There are cases where I haven't given the officers the benefit of the doubt.

This case, for example, is pretty obviously bad:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/24/28330.htm

[sigmadiva]

Should a 12 year old child get tased? No

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

There are so many variables to this situation, some we know, some we don't know, that to try to simplify it to one question is absurd.

We don't know the actions or intent of the 12 yr old child in this situation: 1) Maybe she was an innocent by-stander, or 2) maybe in her effort to protect her mom she got in the way of the cop, and the cop maybe felt she was hindering his arrest, so he tased her.

We also don't know the thought process and past experiences of the cop. Maybe he should have waited for backup, or maybe he needed to act fast. Cops have to work in the moment. They don't have the luxury to sit back and debate the philosophical outcomes of their actions. I'm sure if they did, then we would have different outcomes on most situations.

Like someone said, cops want to live another day too. They should have the right to protect themselves if they feel threatened.

And just for the record, I'm not saying that all cops are good, or all cops are bad. But, I am willing to give them some latitude in handling a potentially violent situation since they are first responders.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Should a 12 year old child get tased? No

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

Uh....

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Cops have to work in the moment.

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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

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

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Should a 12 year old child get tased? No

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

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?

There are so many variables to this situation, some we know, some we don't know, that to try to simplify it to one question is absurd.

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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".

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.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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.

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. )

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

In other words, it can be "infinite".

No, it cannot be "infinite".

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

(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. )

What are you ranting about now?

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

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

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

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

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What are you ranting about now?

You know me, just bitchmoaningandgroanin'.

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

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