Clearly, the individual had no weapon and presented no threat of harm to the officers, though he wasn't sufficiently complying with their commands. At Delaware Online, the specter is raised that something preceding the video might justify the use of force.
What viewers don’t see, according to one witness who called the police, is that previously the man had been physically fighting with his wife, then wrestled with arriving officers for several minutes before they subdued him.This rationalization, however, does nothing to justify what happened afterward. That the guy may have been violent earlier has nothing to do with the use of force after the fighting ended. Rather, this is like news reports that tell of a person's prior offenses in order to smear them and distract attention from the only relevant issue: was the tasing appropriate at the time it occurred. What happened earlier, the day before or any other time has nothing to do with the propriety of the use of a Taser on a person who presented no threat at the time.
The video reflects the use of a Taser for the purpose of obtaining compliance rather than prevent harm. Put aside that the guy in the video crying "police brutality" comes off as silly (I have images of Al Pacino yelling "Attica" in Dog Day Afternoon), and his wife's asking if she can just take him home. Apparently, the genesis of this confrontation was a fight between the guy and the pregnant wife, but clearly that horse had left the barn.
Via the Delaware Libertarian, the 2011 National Standards for the use of Tasers (Electronic Control Weapon) provide that it should only be used in response to a threat of harm:
25. ECWs should be used only against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression or who are actively resisting in a manner that, in the officer’s judgment, is likely to result in injuries to themselves or others. ECWs should not be used against a passive subject.While these guidelines were created by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and are properly described as "best practices," they don't displace local police policy toward the use of Tasers. In other words, if the cops want to use a Taser to teach a guy with a big mouth who's the boss, there may be no policy that prohibits them from doing so.
What this reflects is the need for a rule of law holding that a Taser, like a club or a handgun, is a weapon, which inflicts pain and, on occasion, kills despite its non-lethal description. What it is not is a substitute for patience, a tool to teach people to jump when a cop tells them to or a means by which to subjugate people who annoy police officers or take too long to do as they're told.
Tasers are weapons of force, and weapons of force are only authorized to meet force, to prevent harm to another. There is no authority to use force because it's easy and available. Not even if the force is non-lethal (assuming the characterization is fair when it comes to a Taser).
And for those disinclined to feel particularly sympathetic toward the guy who endures multiple tasings because of his yelling "police brutality," this is also an opportunity to bear in mind that even jerks are entitled not to be needlessly harmed or suffer unjustified pain at the hands of the cops. People are entitled to be jerks. Cops are not.
On the other hand, when P.O. Whitman puts his boot to the guy's head for kicks, he reminds us that police don't need an ECW to engage in outrageous and unwarranted violence toward a citizen.
© 2012 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/04/15/taser-tool-of-compliance-or-weapon-of-force.aspx?ref=rss
colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law
No comments:
Post a Comment