Deaf Man Tasered In Home For Not "Listening To Orders"

[pgp_protector]

Ok, don't laugh cuz this is a dumb question, but if he was literally just getting out of the tub, wouldn't he have been wet? Couldn't that have killed him?

Nope, if anything it could make it less painful as the water would conduct more of the electricity than his body IIRC

 

[BrBob]

You know what bothers me? That this statement can be made in this society.

Generally the drill is, if a cop is pointing a gun at you you get on the ground with your hands away from your body. The guy should have laid face down on the ground with his legs together and his arms away from his body, letting the police know he was not a threat.

Now, I'm not arguing that what was said is not true, just that these things are supposedly common knowledge!

Just for the record, where I live this is NOT common knowledge! I have no experience with police officers walking around with their weapons out. Correct that, I did once see an officer pull his gun to shoot a deer my wife had just hit with her car. It was a mercy killing. But seriously, I would be completley confused and, actually, probably a bit angry if I stepped out of the shower and found police officers in my house with guns drawn. I would assume I was being attacked for some reason and probably run for the bedroom for a rifle! Good grief! I doubt I'd even notice they were police officers if I couldn't hear them. All I'd see is guns pointed my way.

I think the greater danger to this country is not the profusion of crime but the desensitization of the general public to the violence of crime and the oppressive control of the police. My father's generation would have ordered those officers out of the house. I'm not saying that would be the right thing to do but it is indicative of the change in thought processes we've been through in one generation.

It's ugly out there.

We have such a diversity of populations in this country. The big cities have problems and issues that I have never seen and hope I never will. I deal with a life that would make many of you out there in the cities tremble in fear because I take for granted that when I leave something somewhere, it will be there when I get back. I have locked my house about 3 times in the last 12 years, I don't lock my car, I've often left my wallet in the car during the whole work day, I walk at night with no worries, and one of the best things of all - if I want to, I can walk down the street with a loaded gun and nobody cares!

How can we keep these United States united with such diversity??????

I truly think about this on a daily basis.

Bob
Spearfish, SD

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Deaf is hard to figure out, but he said he was telling them "I'm deaf".
A man wearing a towel probably isn't carrying a gun,
but, what if he was?
We see all the facts from the story.

Lets look at what the cops got:

Police were called to the location for a shooting.
Meaning they are looking for someone that is armed.
No one answered the door(he couldn't hear it)
They are checking the house and a man walks out of a bathroom wearing a towel, ignoring all calls to come out.
And the man isn't following comands to get down.

The cops didn't know the call wasn't real. They didn't know the man was deaf.
If the man said he was deaf, it might have been during the shouting of the officiers, and no one heard it.
I think it very strange that a shooting call is made on a house with a deaf person in it.

This one isn't plain abuse. But it still could be misuse of a taser.

I think the problem with tasers is that they can be used in nonthreatening situations. IF we got rid of tasers, they'd be forced to shoot this guy only if they believed he was going for a weapon... which, it seems to me, they couldn't think that from the situation.

Everyone says that tasers are better than guns, because all of these people would be shot dead, instead of tasered, but that isn't true. Not of these people would have been shot, because that isn't the protocal to use a gun.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Ok let's assume for a minute that there are lots of incompetent, stupid, itchy-fingered cops out there. Would you rather have them shoot the guy? Come on people. Tasers are an option cops didn't have ten years ago. They're probably saving lives.

That's not true. They wouldn't have shot this guy. Cops can only shoot if they believe their lives or someone elses lives are in danger. If this dude wasn't going for a gun in his towel, they couldn't have used their firearm.

If they didn't have tasers, they would have calmed the situation nonviolently, and gotten to the bottom of it.

 

[Steezie]

You know what bothers me? That this statement can be made in this society.

Now, I'm not arguing that what was said is not true, just that these things are supposedly common knowledge!

Just for the record, where I live this is NOT common knowledge! I have no experience with police officers walking around with their weapons out. Correct that, I did once see an officer pull his gun to shoot a deer my wife had just hit with her car. It was a mercy killing. But seriously, I would be completley confused and, actually, probably a bit angry if I stepped out of the shower and found police officers in my house with guns drawn. I would assume I was being attacked for some reason and probably run for the bedroom for a rifle! Good grief! I doubt I'd even notice they were police officers if I couldn't hear them. All I'd see is guns pointed my way.

It IS common knowledge that if the cops are pointing a gun at you, there is a reason to do it in their minds and at that moment thats all that matters and you do whatever you have to do to make yourself as un-threatening as possible. Lying down on the ground is a good way to do that but there should be some overt sign that you are not threatening and aren't going to pose a threat to the officers.

I think the greater danger to this country is not the profusion of crime but the desensitization of the general public to the violence of crime and the oppressive control of the police. My father's generation would have ordered those officers out of the house.

And your father's generation never had to deal with people stepping out of a house with an illegally modified assault weapon and hosing the cops with automatic assault weapons.

I'm not saying that would be the right thing to do but it is indicative of the change in thought processes we've been through in one generation.

Its also a change of the law enforcement climate, criminals are getting tougher and meaner. The cops have to respond in kind, asking someone politely to stop doesn't fly anymore.

We have such a diversity of populations in this country. The big cities have problems and issues that I have never seen and hope I never will. I deal with a life that would make many of you out there in the cities tremble in fear because I take for granted that when I leave something somewhere, it will be there when I get back. I have locked my house about 3 times in the last 12 years, I don't lock my car, I've often left my wallet in the car during the whole work day, I walk at night with no worries, and one of the best things of all - if I want to, I can walk down the street with a loaded gun and nobody cares!

Good for you, we don't all live in Pleasantville. I for one want a police force that isnt going to take any crap from somebody. If they think Im doing something, sit down, shut up, and let them check. It'll take them five seconds to figure out Im not a threat and they'll move on.

 

[Sphere]

Tasers do not kill people.

 

[SteveAtheist]

Tasers do not kill people.

Beating someone with a leather whip will most likely not kill anyone either, but that doesn't mean that cops should go around whipping anyone they see fit.

Tasers are non-lethal pain implementers and cops should have good reason to inflict pain on anyone.

 

[Sphere]

Tasers prevent a volatile situation from getting physical and potentially dangerous, and offer a better means of compliance over a baton or mace--which can have no effect of someone on drugs or drunk(the kinds of people police encounter on a daily basis).

 

[Clarity1]

Everyone dies from bullets.

Everyone?

 

[Sphere]

I would hope that most people here can tell the difference between a taser and a firearm being used on someone. Using a taser is better than using a firearm.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I would hope that most people here can tell the difference between a taser and a firearm being used on someone. Using a taser is better than using a firearm.

The problem with that logic is that in all of these situations, a firearm wouldn't have been used either. That would be highly illegal.

It's wrong to claim that a taser is a safer subsitute to a firearm, because in all of these situations, it wasn't a substitute at all.

If a taser was used as a substitute for a firearm, I would be all for that, but that isn't the case.

 

[MichaelFJF]

That's not true. They wouldn't have shot this guy. Cops can only shoot if they believe their lives or someone elses lives are in danger. If this dude wasn't going for a gun in his towel, they couldn't have used their firearm.

If they didn't have tasers, they would have calmed the situation nonviolently, and gotten to the bottom of it.

The bolded part is simply a ridiculous statement. You cannot insert yourself into a hypothetical situation. You weren't there. Even if you were there, you can't predict what would have happened "if."

 

[MichaelFJF]

The problem with that logic is that in all of these situations, a firearm wouldn't have been used either. That would be highly illegal.

It's wrong to claim that a taser is a safer subsitute to a firearm, because in all of these situations, it wasn't a substitute at all.

If a taser was used as a substitute for a firearm, I would be all for that, but that isn't the case.

Pure conjecture.

 

[Morcova]

Tasers do not kill people.

Except when you use them one someone...

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17399364&BRD=1719&PAG=461&dept_id=25271&rfi=6
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/16/america/16canada.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6nx0Cx3uMk
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=96053
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/18/taser.death/index.html

 

[Morcova]

I would hope that most people here can tell the difference between a taser and a firearm being used on someone. Using a taser is better than using a firearm.

Except when you tell people that tasers are safe so idiots like this cop think tasing someone for a no reason is a good idea.

That's how people get killed.

 

[Steezie]

The problem with that logic is that in all of these situations, a firearm wouldn't have been used either. That would be highly illegal.

It's wrong to claim that a taser is a safer subsitute to a firearm, because in all of these situations, it wasn't a substitute at all.

If a taser was used as a substitute for a firearm, I would be all for that, but that isn't the case.

Virtually every cop I've spoken to about them has said that the taser is something they are extremely grateful to have, second only to their bullet-proof vests.

Many cops each year are saved from killing someone or getting killed by tasers.

Yes the potential for abuse is there, yes cops use them too much sometimes. But the same can be said of ANY of a policeman's equipment. Do people die from tasers? Yes. However statistically speaking you are far less likely to die from a taser shot than a gunshot.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Pure conjecture.

No it's not. Cops can only use a gun when they think that a suspect is going for a gun themselves. Not when they don't follow order, not when they hit a cop, not when they flee.

That's law. It isn't conjecture, it's law.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No it's not. Cops can only use a gun when they think that a suspect is going for a gun themselves. Not when they don't follow order, not when they hit a cop, not when they flee.

That's law. It isn't conjecture, it's law.

Then you might want to start a thread in one of the debate areas, because it most likely depends on where someone lives. As is, the quote above certainly would be an incorrect conjecture where I live.

U.S. law supports deadly force in defense of life OR when necessary to arrest dangerous suspects.
It's constitutional - Amendment IV.
See also "objective reasonableness" - U.S. Supreme Court, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)

Although not deadly force, I'm pretty sure the instance in the OP will be reviewed based on active local policy and "objective reasonableness" that doesn't require the police officers to be omniscient.

 

[Sphere]

Except when you tell people that tasers are safe so idiots like this cop think tasing someone for a no reason is a good idea.

Tasers are safe, and police have them because they are a safer more efficient alternative to physically subduing someone--especially when they are drunk or on drugs.

In extremely rare instances, people die due to underlaying medical conditions (usually associated with the heart) and/or due to the drugs in their system. People have died after being maced in the face.
People have died after being placed in handcuffs after over exerting themselves while physically resisting officers. These deaths occur because the person had some sort of unbeknownst medical condition. Police officers do not have ESP, and are incapable of determining if the person they're dealing with is A) on drugs, B) has a heart condition, or C) has any other medical condition that might become aggravated due to being tased/maced.

As for the four links you provided, they say nothing about an autopsy report or cause of death.

No it's not. Cops can only use a gun when they think that a suspect is going for a gun themselves.

A gun has nothing to do with it. If the officers feels their life (or that of a fellow police officer, citizen ect) is in immediate danger of severe injury or death, deadly force can be used.

Not when they don't follow order,

Not true. If the cop feels they are in jeopardy for their life or another, deadly force can be used. This means that if police officers are telling you to "get on the ground" and "do not move", and you instead reach into your waist band, you can be shot.

not when they hit a cop,

Not true. For instance, if a 250 pound man is hitting and struggling (even if he is unarmed) with a 150 pound female police officer, deadly force can be used. That's just an example, there just needs to be a reasonable expectation within the mind of the officer that they will suffer severe bodily injury or death unless deadly force is used.

not when they flee.

Again, not true. If the officer has reason to believe(and is going to make an arrest) that you have just committed a forcible felony(a carjacking, murder, robbery, ect) and you are attempting to flee, you can be shot. All that needs to be shown legally is that in the officers state of mind, he had probably cause to believe you were a severe and immediate risk to the community.

This is summed up marvelously by the very famous Tennessee vs Garner case by the supreme court, which outlined the exception as "such force [meaning deadly force] may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

 

[TexasSky]

If this man just got out of a bathtub, wouldn't a taser be a very dangerous thing to use on him anyway? I mean, electricity plus water sounds like escalated risk of causing death to me.