9th Circuit handcuffs Police AGAIN

[jnevis]

It looks like they're at it again in CA.  With the new ruling Officers are limited as to when they should use their tazsers.  They have to be in physical danger, the person has to warrant the use of the device, and there can't be any other means to subdue the suspect.  What a crock!   A restisting suspect, within range of a tazer, is a danger to the officer, visible weapon or not.

http://www.policeone.com/less-lethal/articles/1984210-Calif-officers-stun-gun-use-faces-new-scrutiny-after-federal-ruling/

[Texas_Bryan]

It looks like they're at it again in CA.  With the new ruling Officers are limited as to when they should use their tazsers.  They have to be in physical danger, the person has to warrant the use of the device, and there can't be any other means to subdue the suspect.  What a crock!   A restisting suspect, within range of a tazer, is a danger to the officer, visible weapon or not.

http://www.policeone.com/less-lethal/articles/1984210-Calif-officers-stun-gun-use-faces-new-scrutiny-after-federal-ruling/

Hang on now.  I don't want to be tased just for arguing with a LEO.  Unlike OC, which shouldn't be used other to subdue either, and other chemical weapons, taser can cause serious physical injury.  Being noncompliant, and argumentative probably doesn't warrant be popped with a taser.  I think their thought process here may be to deter police from tasing disagreeable members of the public.  What's the difference between someone resisting arrest by standing or sitting there not putting their hands behind there back, and someone who wants to fight?  Do you tase the argumentative fellow, or lady, just like a fighting suspect?

[ericire12]

If I was an officer facing "Physical danger" I would pull my firearm, not my taser.

Tasers save lives (unfortunately for tax payers), this is going to get a lot of cops killed as well as civilians

[Texas_Bryan]

If I was an officer facing "Physical danger" I would pull my firearm, not my taser.

Tasers save lives (unfortunately for tax payers), this is going to get a lot of cops killed as well as civilians

How's this going to get cops killed?  It sounds like all it does is say that a taser is not an instrument to force compliance, only to protect yourself when lethal force isn't needed.  Maybe this is all going over my head.

[ericire12]

How's this going to get cops killed?  It sounds like all it does is say that a taser is not an instrument to force compliance, only to protect yourself when lethal force isn't needed.  Maybe this is all going over my head.

It will cause incidents to escalate further then they need to. Officers will now have more incidents where they will have to grapple and fight with suspects, and I think there may also be more incidents where cops are staring down the end of a barrel.

There have been several studies that point to the Taser as the primary reason why police deaths have been decreasing.... This  ruling essentially takes the ability to use a Taser away from the officer. The way I read it, they really can only use a taser now in situations where they SHOULD be using their firearm.

[Sponsor]

[crusader rabbit]

The facts are out there:  some LEOs use TASERs in an inappropriate fashion; little old ladies, handicapped people, etc.  And it is also a fact that a shot from a TASER can cause long-term problems (even death, the longest-term problem).  HOWEVER, I would rather get a TASER blast than a 9mm blast.  And, I would (I think) rather be TASERed than take a night-stick to the side of a knee (though I will admit I haven't done any research to verify this position).  What I am trying to say here is that the valid uses of non-lethal electronic control mechanisms have saved many more lives than they have taken.  It gives LEO an option.  And, while it may not be appropriate when writing a jay-walker with a large mouth, the LEO on the scene should be the one to make that call.  And I am in the camp of those who feel that BGs pretty much surrender their rights to polite behavior from others when they do whatever it was that made them a BG.  (For example:  I was disappointed that the molesting cretin in Phoenix last week didn't resist enough to warrant two to the chest and one to the head.)

The other commonly used option is swarming an offender and I have witnessed that go rapidly nuclear.  LEOs in numbers taking down one BG have frequently escalated the action well beyond the force necessary to subdue and it becomes a "punish the perp" exercise.  Bruises to kidneys and livers, broken collar bones, broken jaws, brain damage are all possible if not likely outcomes.

So, my vote is let the LEO make the call.  If he/she makes the wrong call, give a little one-on-one Come to Jesus meeting.  If the wrong call becomes a habit, that LEO needs to find another line of work.  But keep the 9th Circus Jerks of Schlemiels out of it.

[1Buckshot]

OK don't hang me, But this is the first time I agree with the 9th Circuit. L E has a tough job to do and I respect them for it. I will back an officer most of the  time. It just seems that the tazer has become a tool that is being used way to often. As far as I know its not against the the law to raise your voice to LE . So if an officer doesn't care to stand there, out comes the tazer and argument over. No threat, no violence,end of discussion. Now he has to arrest the person because you cant pull the trigger without a report. More wasted time. I could go on for reasons to and not to use a tazer and that is up to the officer to decide.  I just believe the court wants LE to start to think before the trigger is pulled. Just my 2 cents.

[tombogan03884]

 Erics reasoning is faulty, if the cop is "staring down a barrel" the taser is not the proper tool anyway.
Tasers have been in GENERAL use (not just a few big cities ) for what, 5 years or so ? But Police deaths have been consistently falling for over 10 years, Statistics also show that the number one killer of on duty Police officers are traffic accidents.
Stricter guidelines for Taser use is not likely to lead to an increase in Officer deaths.
As to the other comments, I personally would even tase people who were not resisting arrest if they were annoying enough, like say, oh, the 2 Peace hypocrites on the town square sat. mornings.
But that's just me and I am graduating to "Grumpy old man" status.

[ericire12]

Erics reasoning is faulty, if the cop is "staring down a barrel" the taser is not the proper tool anyway.
Tasers have been in GENERAL use (not just a few big cities ) for what, 5 years or so ? But Police deaths have been consistently falling for over 10 years, Statistics also show that the number one killer of on duty Police officers are traffic accidents.
Stricter guidelines for Taser use is not likely to lead to an increase in Officer deaths.
As to the other comments, I personally would even tase people who were not resisting arrest if they were annoying enough, like say, oh, the 2 Peace hypocrites on the town square sat. mornings.
But that's just me and I am graduating to "Grumpy old man" status.

1. I said cops staring down the barrel would RESULT from escalated events that might have been stopped sooner through the use of a taser.

2. If cops can not have a usable means to make a suspect comply before things get out of hand, then yes more cops will die.

[fightingquaker13]

OK don't hang me, But this is the first time I agree with the 9th Circuit. L E has a tough job to do and I respect them for it. I will back an officer most of the  time. It just seems that the tazer has become a tool that is being used way to often. As far as I know its not against the the law to raise your voice to LE . So if an officer doesn't care to stand there, out comes the tazer and argument over. No threat, no violence,end of discussion. Now he has to arrest the person because you cant pull the trigger without a report. More wasted time. I could go on for reasons to and not to use a tazer and that is up to the officer to decide.  I just believe the court wants LE to start to think before the trigger is pulled. Just my 2 cents.

I think this is the key. The problem is that some, not all, LEOs tend to get a little trigger happy and badge heavy with non lethal weapons. They tend to respect the pistol and night stick because they know if they put someone in the ER or the morgue they better have a damn good reason. Without being anti-cop, I think its fair to say there is a bit too much macho swagger from the boys and girls in Blue and using pepper spray or tear gas is an easy way of punishing "contempt-of-cop". Hell, look at the famous "Don't Taze me 'Bro" incident. There were 4 LEOs on one mouthy college kid whos only crime was being an a-hole to Al Gore. Yet they tazed him. Why? He was facing maybe a misdeanor for didorderly conduct. Life threatening? A threat to public safety? Hardly. Granted I want to give cops maximum reasonable discretion, but I've lived in the real world long enough to know that if you give some one power without accountability, bad stuff happens. Did the court go too far? Maybe, but thats what happens when stuff goes to an appellate court. They want to set a broad rule so that they don't have to Monday morning QB every taser incident. This should have been dealt with at the departmental policy level.
FQ13