Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

Being one incident's worth of rationality vs irrationality more experienced from yesterday (me vs. my 10 months old daughter, trying to get her to sleep *without* having her use mother as the primary cling-onto feel-secure toy; I won at the end, after a long battle of wills), it dawned on me that all bets are really off if you happen to end up on a collision course with someone that acts truly irrational.

You can't reason with someone coming at you with blind fury. Arguably, a grown man should be able to withstand the flailing of a 10-year old girl, but unless he's just standing there absorbing blows until she runs out of steam (which COULD take a while), there's really no real way of avoiding physical confrontation.

I guess most everyone agrees that it would have been noble of the police officer to just wait for an opportunity to restrain her in a non-violent way. However, I can imagine that willfully putting yourself into situations like that day in, day out against just about everyone gets tiresome fast. Since I don't know the specifics, I'm actually willing to concede the (however remote) possiblity that tasing her was the lesser evil in this case. Most likely NOT, but you'd be surprised at times.

 

I would have thought the threat of a taser would have been enough to frighten the girl into submission.

 

Only if the child is being reasonable. I think at this point everyone can agree the child wasn't being reasonable. In fact, I'm willing to bet the child was past tantrum and to a point that most parents never see.

 

It's irrelevant your assertion that it is merely opinion that the child was being violent. The child was being violent. Are we in agreement on this?

Neither have I. But then, I'd possibly cause lasting injury to the child, and get a few scratches and bites (or worse) in the process.

 

Seriously, people keep saying that manhandling would result in injury. There are literally dozens of ways to immobilize someone without injury if you ever did martial arts. Jiu-jitsu for example, offers a lot of grappling techniques that ends threats in a fast and secure manner.

 

No. It has merely been asserted that manhandling *could* result in injury.

Can you guarantee that such grapples would not harm the child? Has Jiu-jitsu ever been scientifically studied to determine whether it could end a threat from a child in a fast and secure manner? How does the risk of injury and death compare with that of a taser?

 

And I would love to see all police officers trained in Jiu-Jitsu, but somehow I doubt it'll happen.

 

mordea, there is no indication the child was a threat to herself or others before the police officer grappled with her. So, no, I don't agree she was violent before that point. The police officer's actions to that point are questionable -- a police officer who instigates a violent confrontation is liable for his own actions, people are allowed to defend themselves from criminal acts even if those acts are committed by the police.

 

T2, there's also evidence of an unknown history between the police and the child. Without knowing what that is, I think it arrogant and reckless to second guess the police.

 

It is arrogant and reckless to second guess the police during a crisis situation -- it is the responsibility of all citizens to question the motives and methods used by the police. Without the citizens acting as a checks and balances for the police we may as well kiss our rights good-bye.

The real unknown is the history of the police and the mother, not necessarily the child.

 

there's a difference between a Dojo and an actual incident, I doubt there has been much testing of Jujitsu against kids in a forceful situation. matrial arts injuries happen all the time.

no article on this incident is good enough to paint a clear picture, they avoid details using words like "resisting" and "verbally combative" which dont tell us anything.

when I tell an officer that someone is resisting usually means violent and aggressive, and verbally combative, means that he/she has called us everything under the sun.

so, thats what I assume when I read these words, but what else can I do, I put my own interpretation to otherwise vague media, as everyone in this thread has all of the debate is assumption.

some of us see a sweet innocent girl who was brutally attacked by an officer for refusing to take a shower.

I see a nasty piece of work, who has emotional problems and thinks she can control adults with aggressive behaviour thinking that theyll never touch her.

 

I am sure the officer in question would have had no problems dealing with her, even if she got out of hand. Pinning her, for example, wouldn`t be any trouble for a cop who is trained to physically deal with people his own size. Tasing her is just...nazi.

 

I notice that this assertion keeps coming up in this thread. Why are you sure? The fact is, anyone who does not have conclusive proof that all ten year olds are easily subdued cannot make this statement categorically. I suspect that what you're really saying is "I can't conceive of how the officer in question would have any problems dealing with her ...," which is a far cry from a statement of fact. You are essentially saying that within your scope of experience, you have never seen or heard of a ten year old who could pose a physical threat to a police officer. To portray that as anything but a limited observation - and to proceed with other conclusions based on it - is ill-informed at best and fundamentally dishonest at worst.

On the flipside, all it takes to make a factual statement to the contrary is to have been in an altercation with a ten year old who assaulted you or to have heard a credible report of such an altercation. No offense, but I suspect that many of you here who are so quick to jump to this conclusion are inadvertantly betraying the fact that you have never been involved in a serious physical altercation with another person. When people get into real fights, they're messy, chaotic, and rarely go according to any preconceived 'plan.' And more often than not, the participants get injured in some way or another. Personally, I would be surprised if a physical altercation between an adult and an everage ten year old did not result in injuries to both parties, even if only minor ones like scratches.

 

There is no indication that the child was not a threat to herself or others. And even if there was no actual threat, the officer was within his rights to restrain the child.

She was being violent before she was tased. I guess the officer could have just backed off after getting kicked in the balls and let her get her way, but what sort of message does that send to kids? How many parents would take a kick in the balls from their children and then do nothing?

I disagree. Police officers routinely restrain both violent and non-violent individuals. Even adults who engage in passive resistance are restrained.

People are not allowed to kick a police officer in the balls if they attempt to restrain them, even unjustly. That's assaulting an officer. If you have a problem with your treatment, you take it up with the judge. Otherwise we'd have anarchy, where every accused criminal would assault the officer attempting to restrain them in 'self-defense'.

 

mordea you (and others) are applying rules for adults to children. Their thought processes are different. A police officer who fails to understand the difference should not be in law enforcement.

There are specific buzz words missing in the news articles to indicate any of your assumptions are true (usually such things are explicitly detailed in an article). That such phrases are missing makes the police officer's actions in the incident highly questionable. The token support from the department is also an indicator.

Having read literally thousands of articles involving crime and police involvement I have found that what is missing in an article says as much as the information presented.

 

the articles are massively bias against the police department, its almost like reading the guardian in the UK, of course the information is missing, in fact these are some of the most vague articles Ive ever read

the information there is specific to one side of the story

 

Are you saying that children are allowed to kick authority figures in the balls with impunity? Gee, wish I was a kid again.

'Their thought processes are different' is a rather vague statement. How are they different, and why should that have affected how this officer dealt with the child?

What assumptions?

What phrases?

Assuming that there is only token support (speculation!), that constitutes an appeal to authority.

What information is missing?

 

If you read the article the officers explain that they did it for the safety of the child. Tasers are much safer than using physical force to restrain people that are out of control.

 

Of course he said that Rusty, that's the standard line anytime an officer tases or uses pepper spray -- what else would he say? "The tiny little girl got the best of me and rather than have my ass handed to be I decided to zap her into submission." That would go over well.

mordea, I have no desire to tutor you in basic psychology or in life lessons, but with some study you can find the answers to your own questions. Although the answers to most of your questions have already been discussed in the thread.

 

T2, thats a bit of a cop out.

there is important information missing, a statement from the mother and statement from the officer, the only information weve be given is from people who are against it.

What about this one? :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/10-yearold-tasered-by-she_n_378394.html

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21794500/detail.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/colorado-cops-say-tasered-10-year-old-boy-was-‘out-of-control’.html

http://www.nationalledger.com/ledgerdc/article_272629317.shtml?ref=rss

what Ive read about distance in these articles I believe this wa a barbed taser.