Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

Three cops that can't disarm a 10 year old holding a two foot pipe -- pathetic. Once again, there is not adequate information to show tasing of any kind is safe on children (or elderly for that matter).

Shoshino, perhaps it's a cop out, but I actually have a life (in spite of my post count) and several people have already answered most of mordea's questions in previous posts. I have no desire to waste my time if mordea is unwilling to review the previous material or cannot see his or her own assumptions in the argument presented. Spoon feeding is something I will occasionally do for my 18 month old, I won't do it here on the boards.

 

Actually, I would guess on an issue as charged as this that any bias is more responsible for the pressence or absence of buzz words than actual information. I haven't read so many crime articles, but I have read a lot of political articles over the years, and two different reports on the same issue can read completely differently depending on the position of the author, even when 'just covering the facts'.

Once again, your bias and apparent lack of experience shines through. A 10-year-old with a pipe can kill!

And again, the only reason for this is that no one against Taser has sone the research. You keep saying this, but all the research that has been submitted says tasers are substantially safe (i.e. there's always a risk for everything, even a softball isnt 100% safe). You dismiss that research because it's from a biassed source, but you (nor anyone else) can't provide anything contradictory. Now, I don't blame you for this, I'm sure you're not in any position to conduct a scientific study on the safety of tasers, but there are people who are, and they don't.

T2, the problem is that the answers that have been given have also been debated, and thus they don't settle anything.

 

NOG, I ran a 300 man security force which protected nuclear weapons for two years. I was involved in all aspects of training. Perhaps you can fill in what parts of disabling an assailant I might have missed. Three trained officers, one ten-year-old ... something seems amiss.

You sound like you own stock in Taser -- but you are correct that there has been inadequate research. It is the responsibility of those manufacturing tasers to prove the equipment is valid for use against specific demographics. In this case the physiology of both children and the elderly significantly differ from the physiology of the test groups. Your position is similar to allow medicines to be made available across all demographics without adequate testing -- neither is acceptable.

 

How about the part where the security force will be flayed alive if any harm befalls the assailant? I'm sure in your work with the nukes, you were given more latitude.

As for testing, while you are right that it hasn't been tested on children, even the testing on adults has been challenged and, in many cases, thrown out without any cause. Sure, Taser could perform testing on children (carefully, and with full disclosure ), but why should they expect any different results? Accept the research they've already done and there will be reason to do more.

 

I don't understand ... we should start with the assumption that the officer is lying? Why?

I have to ask again, do you have personal, experiential knowledge (or can you quote a scientific study) that indicates that 3 police officers can always disarm 10 year olds holding pipes without any danger? If not, how can you conclude that a reported incidence of that happening is pathetic, other than through your own assumptions? That's reckless and irresponsible. You can, however, easily put this matter to rest by simply explaining how, conclusively, 3 police officers should always be able to safely disarm a 10 year old holding a pipe in any condition or circumstance. Not "I would imagine that they can" or "it sure seems like they could" or "common sense tells me that it is so," but "they can because a + b = c."

Your experience with running the 300 man security force is duly noted. Still, have you ever attempted to subdue or disarm a violent 10 year old? What were some other examples of attempts to subdue other persons (of any age) at the nuclear weapons facility like? Were they always successful, and did they never result in any injuries to any parties?

It would be helpful to guage your level of expertise if we knew significant details about the incidents you may have been involved in, such as the number of responding security officers, the estimated threat level of the persons being subdued, whether the persons being subdued were armed or not, the general size, age, and sex of those being subdued, etc.

Someting may seem amiss to you, but the fact that you can't (or have yet to) state with absolute certainty that all 10 year olds can be subdued easily by police officers should prevent you or any other responsible person from making sweeping assertions to that effect.

 

Do you really think it is not reasonable to assume a trained Police Officer cannot subdue a 10 year old girl? Really? The only thing that would stop that assumption is if the girl was physically a threat to the cop. If she was, that would of been included in the story. No journalist on this planet would miss an oppurtunity to include the description of an "Overlarge", "Kid with fangs and green eyes", etc... descriptor of a 10-year old girl. Not a one. Unless of course, the journalists has a motive for putting the police in a bad light. But then, since so many different writers chose to write about the topic, I doubt all of them went down that path. With that said, I find it rather easy to conclude she wasn't a threat to the cop. With all of the arguments and posturing in this thread, I still find it hard to believe there are some out there that will defend the cops actions. YOU NEVER TASER A LITTLE GIRL! This thread has been going for a while now. Over the holdiays, I spoke with a few family members. All of them being Police officers. Not a one of them would speak for or against the said police officer, but all of them said they would never use a Taser on a child, period.

 

Its not about whether they could or couldnt, its whether they could do it safely without causing harm to the child.
Im currently facing a charge of actual bodily harm for putting an arm lock on a fully grown woman because "it hurt" Im not worried because were presenting the CCTV of her actions which led to her being restrained, but there you have it, I put hands on her, she claims injury Im facing magistrates - Imagine if a cop placed the girl in restraint and caused injury he would have been burnt at the stake, to him the taser was safe.

we in the UK have seen the repercussions of officers doing their jobs against people who were rioting for god sake and they are facing charges, I have no reason to believe that the 'victims' of police activity in the US recieve different treatment.

 

I get where your coming from Sho. I am all for Cops and Security to have the ability to do there jobs in the safest manner. There will always be those out there that will try to get money out of any situation. Especially when the situation gets a bit physical. It's like a "Jackpot" sign to many. Even if they are trying to redeem some fo their wounded pride, I don't agree with those type of lawsuits, but I think most are just Greedy s-o-bs...

But as for the story, if he caused her harm by subduing her, it would have to be proven in court. I don't know how his department would handle that. Maybe he knew, from say prior instances in the department, that the departmental policy would automatically suspend him and pay out a settlement to the accuser. I don't know. But to me, avoiding the effect the Taser has on any child is more important. The taser has to be tramatizing to a kid, let alone really painful. That just bothers me.

 

Well what we're talking about specifically is 'restrain with little or no danger to either party' of course, but yes. Specifically, I think it's unreasonable to make assumptions about anything that you don't have conclusive evidence for ... and I still haven't seen any conclusive evidence to support the assumption that all 10 year old girls can be easily subdued by all trained police officers. Can you point to a scientific study that claims that, or do you yourself have that personal knowledge? If not, you're still, after all this time and debate, making a baseless assumption and drawing significant conclusions from it - namely condemning the officer in question.

Hm, I'm not so sure about that. Any journalistic copy is subject to at least the same amount of bias as a police report would be, imo, maybe more. The journalist would have to take into consideration the potential for slander liability, but the writer of the police report could face criminal charges for falsifying a police report. Regardless, if the 10 year old girl was not portrayed as a threat in the news reports, that's hardly conclusive evidence that she was not a threat in reality.

And how is it that you possess this factual knowledge as well? Are you really that familiar with all journalists on this planet? I could easily see some AP report or the like simply stating the basics.

Are you seriously asserting that if no news stories report specifically that the child was a "threat to the cop," that is incontrovertible proof that she was not a threat? Seriously?

You find it hard to believe that people have not drawn conclusions in your favor based on the shakey arguments and false representations of 'fact' presented here? I find that hard to believe.

You can posture and shout this assertion to the rooftops all you like, but the question still remains: why?

Good for them. At least they're showing the sense not to pass judgement on an issue without knowing what happened for a certainty.

That's certainly a fair position for a police officer to take. They may well have varying degrees of confidence in tasers.

 

You can ask that question with a straight face? And sleep at night? Why shouldn't you Taser a Little Girl? Are you for real?

 

Perhaps now would be a good time for someone to link an article about the positive affects violence has on our children ... maybe the 'spare the rod, spoil the child' kind of thing where a little pain and suffering helps prevent behavioral issues in the future ... anything in behavioral psychology that would support the use of such measures on children....

 

Still waiting for the evidence. You have made an assertion that, despite your emotional appeals, is not self-evident. Therefore you are obliged to provide evidence in order to have your assertion considered. Not vice-versa.

Personally, I'm not advocating taser use on children. I'm simply stating that based on the information we have, the conclusion that the police officer acted wrongly is not necessarily supported. It could be that he did intend to injure the child or 'teach her a lesson' or something to that effect; it could also be that his actions were justified. It seems extremely unlikely to me that we'll ever know for sure, as I suspect that only eyewitness accounts could really make a reliable determination. But it is interesting to note that the two adults present - the police officer and the mother - both stated it was.

Has the police officer been shown to have a history of (inter-departmental) disciplinary actions on his record by any chance?

~

On a side note, let me apologize to both of you for what upon review appears at times to be an unecessarily aggressive tone in my posts above. I didn't really intend that, and I'll endeavor to be more measured in the future.

@BoV - I know I don't speak for you, but if I may, it seems to me like what you're really saying is that the notion of any police officer tasing any child offends your sensibilities. That's fair enough, as I don't believe we really have to justify our sensibilities to anyone. Where you're going astray though, imo, is to presume that your sensibilities stand as universal norms or standards and should be considered prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. That simply isn't the case.

 

I've been out of the debate for a while, and I really do not have anything more to add to the current discussion, but there does seem to be some inconsistency in this request. Specifically, why is the onus on those who think the officer acted wrongly in use of the taser to prove that in all scenarios a police officer can restain a little girl with little or no chance of injury to either party with something other than a taser? Setting aside what appears to be an impossibly high standard to attain (how can anyone assess a nearly infinite set of possibilities?) why do you feel it isn't necessary to provide evidence that tasering a child carries little or no chance of injury to either party?

In this particular case we can say with certainty that the little girl does not appear to be seriously injured, but we cannot from that conclude based on a single occurrance that such would always be the case. Similarly, we cannot know what would have happened if the officer tried to subdue the girl by other means. However, lack of 100% certainty should not make a contrapositive assumption null.

 

That's actually an appeal to provide evidence for that specific claim made here:

Or more specifically, for the above poster to explain how he knows that the officer would have no problems dealing with the girl.

As for the part you quoted from me, I'm asking BoV to provide support for his assertion that "you [should] never taser a little girl," not to explain the no-injury restraint claim. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I haven't made that claim.

That's precisely why I think it's reckless to make that claim.

 

I'm obliged to do no such thing. If it's not self-evident to you, that in no way proves it's not to others. Obviously we think on different emotional levels.

Ok, your turn to provide the scenario where Tasing a Little Girl is Justified..........Can't do it, can ya? Not without that guilty feeling inside eating away at you, knowing defending that action is wrong. It's on the Moral ground where I plant my standard on an issue like this. Absolute proofs and the like are not necessary in that forum and will always be a point of contention amongst those that disagree on issues that intrude upon the moralities of others.

As they had a vested interest in doing so, that conclussion should be obvious. Otherwise, they could see criminal charges coming their way.

Gaear, when one considers certain types of actions to be common sense, no-brainers or however you want to term the obvious, then it is certainly understandable for that person to think that they should be universal norms as well....

IMO, here in the Alleys, when speaking from a Moral standpoint, justification through "undeniable proof" is not only unnecessary, but an impossiblity. How can anyone ascertain what is morally right and wrong in every discussion. If I could figure that one out...., well, let's just say I would have a whole lot of extra loot in my bank accounts!

 

IMO, morality is something which should be completely removed from any discussion regarding law and order.
As Aristotle said "the law is reason free from passion"

those in favour of the taser are arguing a practical and logical point of view, those against are arguing a moral and passionate point of view.

The taser brought a safe end to a potentially volitile situation, it was reasonable for the officer to assume that the taser was safe, it was reasonable and logical to assume that the officer knew the use of the taser would end the incident, it is reasonable and logical to assume that the officer was dispatched to the location because an offence was reported.

we know that the officer was assulted, we know that the child has a history of emotional problems and is known to the police.

 

A little girl with HIV has just bitten another child and is throwing a tantrum. The police are called in, but when they attempt to restrain her she attempts to bite them as well.

I don't feel guilty whatsoever about contemplating the use of a taser in such a scenario.

 

No....

No....

And no. I don't agree with any of those assumptions. The officer has no reason to assume tasing a child is either appropriate or safe. Training on the taser and all studies are in reference with healthy adults as targets. There is no reason to assume an offense was taking place, only a complaint. And, we only know the mother had called to police before -- we have no indication the police ever acted on the mother's complaints before.

That is an example of irrational fear making the decision.

 

You'd take the risk of being subjected to a bite from an individual infected with HIV?

 

Do you mean a hypothetical or as applies to this case specifically?

This case: the officer responded to the scene and, based on what he observed, judged that it there would be less risk of injury to the child and himself if he used a taser rather than getting into a physical altercation.

Hypothetical: an officer responds to a disturbance call and finds a 10 year old girl brandishing a firearm at her mother. Should he respond with deadly force and shoot the girl? Should he risk a physical altercation (attempt to tackle her before she can fire, etc.), not knowing if the firearm might be discharged in the ensuing struggle and possibly hit the girl? Or should he fire a taser (the barbed variety, I would think) at the girl to disable her?

I don't know if that would actually be safe - if e.g. a taser shock might cause muscle contractions which could cause the girl to discharge the firearm ... just speaking hypothetically. Assuming for the sake of this argument that the taser wouldn't do that, I would think it would clearly be preferred to shooting her or risking accidental injury or death with a physical struggle.

Let's use another hypothetical to try to illustrate the point of the need for evidence: if I were to stand up and state that shooting an animal is morally wrong, and really really felt it in my heart, would that make it so? Even if you were not an advocate of hunting, wouldn't you expect me to provide some rationale for making that assertion? According to the rules you just laid out, I would have no such obligation and should enjoy the consensus of being right until such time as anyone could prove me wrong.