I think in some cases police are too quick to use tasers. They should be used only in extreme circumstances.

 

I saw on the news recently where a guy and his pregnant wife were pulled over for speeding. The officer asked him to sign the speeding ticket, and he refused. The officer told him to get out of the car. They then began debating the issue, the officer telling him that he "was going to sign the ticket" and the speeder telling him he "wasn't." Then the officer ordered him "down on the ground" and the speeder answering, "What is your problem, man?" The officer then pulled his taser and shot the man, who immediately fell to the ground screaming in pain. When his wife got out of the vehicle to check on her husband the was ordered to get back in the vehicle.

Police officials later said that the driver actually did have the right to refuse to sign the ticket, but they played it off as two ego-driven individuals both letting their emotions get the best of them. Kind of sounds like a law suit to me.

I saw the same clip on the new's. I think taser gun's are being used in alot of instances when they shouldn't be. It's the new billy club stick with voltage.

Here in Ohio this does not shock me at all.

The Taser is not used as an alternative to deadly force. It is a device to gain control. If deadly force is needed the taser is not an option. Give the guy the benifit of the doubt. He was doing the right thing. The video is not that good. You can't see what she is doing with her hands or what she is saying.

As far as the guy in Utah with the speeding ticket. The police in Utah have the right to arrest if the person does not sign the ticket, according to the story I heard. He was told to turn around and place his hands on the car first, indicating he was under arrest. He turned and walked away. Resisting arrest. The bottom line is both guys were doing the right thing under their authority. It was the criminal who refused to comply.

I can't see the FBI having jurisdiction in the case.

Does anyone know what the lady said during her time in the station? I mean, if she's psychotic and said she was going to kill her kid if she didn't get rid of him, then decided to leave...taze her.

 

I believe in giving our officers the benefit of the doubt...

 

I have to agree with sticky here. I have personally seen people tased on several occasions.

 

On the surface the tasing appears to be unnecessary. However, you dont know how the officer perceived her based on how she presented herself. Psychotic and/or drugged people can be incredibly strong and violent. Make no mistake, women can be every bit as dangerous as men in those situations.

 

 

Certainly the matter deserves a full investigation. If he tased her just to teach her a lesson that is one thing. However, if he tased her in order to subdue her and prevent harm to her or others, that is something else.

 

I too, would give the officer the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise.

 

I wonder if they knew she was pregnant?

The Taser is not used as an alternative to deadly force. It is a device to gain control. If deadly force is needed the taser is not an option. Give the guy the benifit of the doubt. He was doing the right thing. The video is not that good. You can't see what she is doing with her hands or what she is saying.

As far as the guy in Utah with the speeding ticket. The police in Utah have the right to arrest if the person does not sign the ticket, according to the story I heard. He was told to turn around and place his hands on the car first, indicating he was under arrest. He turned and walked away. Resisting arrest. The bottom line is both guys were doing the right thing under their authority. It was the criminal who refused to comply.

I can't see the FBI having jurisdiction in the case.

 

Sounds like power trips in both scenarios. I don't care if they both had the right to use a taser, that is definitely overkill in both cases.

 

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

The Taser is not used as an alternative to deadly force. It is a device to gain control. If deadly force is needed the taser is not an option. Give the guy the benifit of the doubt. He was doing the right thing. The video is not that good. You can't see what she is doing with her hands or what she is saying.

As far as the guy in Utah with the speeding ticket. The police in Utah have the right to arrest if the person does not sign the ticket, according to the story I heard. He was told to turn around and place his hands on the car first, indicating he was under arrest. He turned and walked away. Resisting arrest. The bottom line is both guys were doing the right thing under their authority. It was the criminal who refused to comply.

I can't see the FBI having jurisdiction in the case.

 

Every police department I'm familiar with has specific guidelines for using tasers. All of which explicitly note that it is only an option in a situation that would warrant the use of deadly force. The above sounds like a few lazy officers not wanting to get their hands dirty.

When I was younger I was guilty of being rowdy at a party (I will admit to that). Cops came and I was the one who got picked out of the crowd there. When they told me I was under arrest and to put my hands on the wall which I did...... the cops went crazy on me actually maced me while I was spread eagle on a wall. The two guys never even knocked me down just tested everything out on my while I was against the wall. I got a dose of everything on their belt. Mace, billy club, flashlight, two pairs of cuffs and got tasered and beat down by two nice policeman before and after I was in cuffs. I don't have much love for people who abuse these items as they were on me, I am a good sized healthy guy, college football player at the time and can understand the intimidation factor I may have had on a few officers, but a woman already in the station come on. The charges I might add were all dropped when I went to court after about 5 minutes of explaining the situation. Seemed I was similar in description to someone who had been causing some problems in the same area where I was at.

Every police department I'm familiar with has specific guidelines for using tasers. All of which explicitly note that it is only an option in a situation that would warrant the use of deadly force. The above sounds like a few lazy officers not wanting to get their hands dirty.

 

Right the problem is many times there is no one to see the abuse of these items. This one was seen only becuase of a camera.

Guys I have been tased before. It hurts for a few minutes, but its not the worst pain I have ever felt. It does temporarily incapacitate you. In both these cases the subject tased was not harmed. The taser device should not be an alternative to deadly force "only". It provides a safe and effective way to secure a person who will not otherwise comply with a legal order of arrest. The cop or the bad guy don't get hurt.