Replies

The police are not in the business of inflicting pain on anyone.

Yet they are allowed to use pain compliance techniques to enforce order and arrest suspects. They do it every day, it may not be their "business", but it is a tool they use.

A restrained subject cannot harm a properly trained police officer

This is demonstrably false. Officers have been killed by restrained individuals. Officers are frequently injured by flailing or jack-knifing "restrained" persons and of course, restrained persons have been injured and or died while in restraints.

The FBI and many other agencies collect and study these When this punk and his lawyer get into court they will be faced with reams of studies and experts to show why the taser represents a lower level use of force than other methods like the baton or a choke hold and is therefore reasonable.

I think the police were acting illegally in this matter.

1. I don't even think it was legal for the police to demand ID from this kid. They can legally ask for ID but that in no way obligates him to show ID. To the best of my knowledge, California has no 'Stop and Identify' laws.

2. Is it even legal for them to do ID checks sweeps like this? They allow them to check everyone's IDs at certain locations but those are more the exception than the rule. On what basis did they have for engaging in such a sweep?

3. Did they even have the legal authority to order this kid to leave? I don't think they had the authority to even ask for the kids ID, let alone kick him out for not showing it to them.

4. Failure to obey a police order isn't necessarily illegal anyways. Police are limited in what they can legally do. They are police, there for our protection. They are not our overseers or drill instructors. You are under absolutely NO legal obligation to assist in police efforts to arrest you. If they tell you to stand, you don't have to do anything. Your not allowed to resist but resistence and noncompliance are two entirely different things.

I think the police were entirely out of line here. they had no authority to do what they did. The police involved should be prosecuted. I am personally getting tired of this Police State attitude being fostered by police.

Oh...on this I did speak to five police officers this past Sunday. One Major, one Lieutenant, three Sergeants. Four of the five agreed with me that tasing, even in drive stun (which has the same voltage, but just doesn't use the barb. It's not a lighter charge, as you claimed above) would be UNADVISEABLE after a subject's in handcuffs, especially if three officers are present to control a single subject. Other pain compliance techniques should always be used FIRST, according to these experienced officers, and if a subject can be dragged to the car it's better than tasing him to get him to move.

The one officer (a sergeant), who said the tase might be reasonable for a handcuffed subject, qualified the endorsement by stipulating that the subject had to be a) big and muscular, and b) kicking powerfully, AND the officer had to be in distress, i.e., alone or somehow otherwise at a distinct disadvantage.

The subject in the case under discussion was not big and strong, and he was not kicking (he went limp). Also the officers present were not in distress or at a disadvantage.

All these cops said they're leery of tasers, and think federal legislation is imminent to control their use. The taser is convenient for police, but their use in situations where it's unadviseable, such as in UCLA, is also on the rise. The constitutionality of these pain-inflicting devices is highly debatable.