[::rimshot::] :)
Posted on 11/16/2006 8:23:50 PM PST by Arec Barrwin
In section IV we even see the "method of force" indicated as "temp. restraints." Think for a second with your capably logical mind. How can temp. restraints be applied to a person who's already in restaints?
So if a suspect is in cuffs, but starts biting or kicking an officer, the chart no longer applies?
Unless you know what the UCLA PD policy is, you're just guessing.
They ought to take the TASERs away from the police and give them back their nightsticks. One good whack gets better results than a TASER any day.
Biting can be avoided easily. I've already addressed the kicking issue in several posts.
---Civil rights are a luxury available only to those who comply in the face of the cover of uniform.
Zeig heil.---
You realize of course that by playing the Nazi card you have automatically forfeited the argument?
---They didn't taser him because he's Muslim, they tasered him because most campus police are a-holes.--
You forgot the sarcasm tag, I hope.
They should have just maced him and drug him out by his feet.
Apparently, no one ever taught this PUNK to respect law enforcement and work your problems out in court, not in the street or library as it were.
Bring back the Nightstick (PR-24)
That's why you should check the policies of your local city, county and state law enforcement. What you don't know (or what you think you know, but isn't true) can hurt you.
Officers have been killed by cuffed suspects. Cuffs do not end the force continuum.
Large cuffed suspects are manhandled every day without being drive stunned, you are correct. But there is a push to end this due to the number of back and other injuries to both officers and suspects and substitute pain compliance in place of physical manhandling.
It was that, or play piano in a whorehouse.
... and the primary difference being...? [::ducks quickly::] :)
Whorehouses aren't unionized.
[::rimshot::] :)
I'm very familiar with law enforcement. Although I'm not a police officer, I'm close friends with many, and have been for years. I have never heard any of them attempt to justify the use of a taser on a handcuffed subject. NEVER.
By the way, I will see a friend of mine, a chief in the Metro-Dade sheriff's office, on Sunday. I have no doubt in my mind that when I tell him your contention, he'll laugh uproariously.
"I'm wet! I'm wet! I'm hysterical and I'm wet! I'm in pain! And I'm wet! And I'm still hysterical! No, no, no, don't hit, don't hit, it doesn't help! It only increases my sense of danger."
This whole thing just pisses me off to no end..
All of these represent recent decisions in cases where already restrained subjects were tased.
Willkomm v. Mayer (WI Dells) USDC W.D. WI (Slip Copy 2006 WL 582044) March 9, 2006, the court held that the TASER device was a reasonable use of force when used to gain compliance with the officer's orders in an effort to handcuff the plaintiff, comply with the officer's orders while handcuffed and to secure plaintiff for transportation to the hospital.
In Devoe v. Rebant, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 334297, E.D.Mich. (Feb 13, 2006), the officer administered a "drive stun" with his TASER device to the plaintiff's lower right back when the plaintiff resisted the officer's commands. At that point, the plaintiff voluntarily sat down inside the patrol car. The court noted that attempting to physically force the plaintiff into the vehicle likely would have escalated the situation into a physical struggle in which the plaintiff or the officers could have been seriously injured and held that the use of the TASER device was a reasonable use of force under the circumstances.
In the case of McBride v. Clark, USDC W.D. MO (Slip Copy 2006 WL 581139) March 8, 2006, an officer deployed a TASER device on plaintiff's neck while he was restrained in a restraint chair. The court granted summary judgment to the officer by ruling (as a matter of law) that under the circumstances the use of the TASER device on Plaintiff's neck was "objectively reasonable."
Great screenname? How come there's no "Hahns Brix"?
The last case cited doesn't fit the criteria, because the subject is described as being in a "restraint chair," indicating a degree of custody far beyond anything being discussed here. Subjects in "restraint chairs" typically are experiencing something like a psychotic episode, which a tased shock might help to dispel. In any case more would have to be known about that particular case before I could admit to its relevance.
The second case does not specifically state that the subject was in handcuffs.
The first case seems to fit the criteria. I find it very chilling that a judge found it reasonable for an officer to use a taser on a subject in order to force the subject to "comply with the officer's orders while handcuffed and to secure plaintiff for transportation to the hospital." The ruling is an obscene escalation in police powers and should be overturned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.