12-year-old tased by police officer

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

Sandusky learned that age is not just a number.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

Sandusky learned that age is not just a number.

Touché.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[als463]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?)

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Step back and look at the whole situation instead of individual little factors.

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

[Kevin]

No, not whatever. Dejamon Baker is 12 years old.

I can understand a CHILD crying and being frantic if a parent is being (what the child may perceive as) randomly arrested at the mall. The 12-year-old CHILD was the only person tasered.

Controlling for her mother's traffic warrants, perhaps you would view tasering a 12 year old child differently if she looked like this 12 year old girl:

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[Kevin]

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?

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I really don't see anything wrong with this.

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

What in the hell are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Iota Man

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

He's definitely slow.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Iota Man

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

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.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.