TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Not being there is fair enough for sure, but I watched the video, with audio. You can probably find it online somewhere, but lets just say for discussion, this is a completely peaceful (no physical violence or threatening words) but non-compliant (didn't comply - asked for husband) elderly woman.

I find it a stretch to light 'er up with a tazer. That is just my non-LEO opinion however.

Good posts and insights

-nick

cops are fired all the time for excessive force and poor judgment, but that decision isn't made until all the facts are known.

i was involved in an incident where an officer (supervisor) was under an IA investigation for excessive force. i told the IAD that i thought the amount of force was more than i would have used. i was there and i saw what happened. i even told this supervisor that i didn't think what he was doing was necessary. the guy was just being mouthy. it sucks fronting out a fellow co-worker, but when integrity is the most important part of your job, you tell the truth. the worst part for me was it was someone I arrested, but couldn't transport due to the car i was driving. the supervisor transported and booked him in so i could finish my report. in my honest opinion, it was too much force. i felt bad that the guy lost his job, but it's all about choices. he made a bad one.

Kalrog wrote:I think my problem with this is I see a tazer as a nice option prior to pulling the handgun. If you can't pull the handgun, then you probably shouldn't be pulling the tazer either.

They are called less lethal instead of non lethal for a reason.

if you put them on a scale, the taser comes before OC spray. OC spray comes before putting your hands on someone. the taser has no residual effects and is considered less force than OC spray. if you need to pull a handgun, you should pull a handgun. a rookie cop in el paso made that mistake and he's got his own section on ODMP now.

most departments now are getting away from the 'use of force continuum' because attorneys are using that as a crutch. now, the best way to put it is an officer in the middle of a circle surrounded by various options, or tools, rather than progressing through various levels. the rationale behind this is officers don't have to keep trying things until they find something that works.

i wasn't there, so i have no idea if 4 more times was excessive. having been hit with the media spotlight on a few occassions, i can tell you they tend to put on a hefty slant. most police stories don't sell papers unless you juice them up a bit. in one instance, my butt was all over the news with really juicy headlines. they never reported the final outcome...go figure.

i've seen 3 officers wrestling a woman in her 60s. you should never make the mistake of taking anything for granted. the first time you get bitten or kicked in the groin, you won't make that mistake again.

KBCraig wrote:
Just for the record, I'm in a similar line of work. When I write someone up and he doesn't wish to comply, the stakes are a bit higher: by "losing", we could lose control of a unit, or an entire institution.

street work and jail assignments aren't even a close comparison. i've done both. the approach to problems are handled entirely different. if i had the peace of mind to know that person was not armed, i'd have no problem waiting a while. a lot of dead cops who made that mistake.

gigag04 wrote:Let's bring this back to tazer-ing granny.

Would that really hold up?? Just to get compliance? Maybe it's me, but it seems kind of unfair (now I know life isn't fair, but usually the uneven stakes are better hidden). It seems like it makes LEO's a super-class that can bully the common folk to do whatever they want.

so if granny sits down and refuses to do what you request, you give her a pass? what about a 30 year old male dope head? where does that fall into the fair and impartial treatment?

i've written a 92 year old her very first ticket. age shouldn't have anything to do with it. a 92 year old female in her buick running a stop sign is just as dangerous as a 16 year old in a mustang doing it. the logic i see thus far is that granny gets a pass based on age. that's not providing fair and impartial treatement.

if granny commits a violation that warrants a trip to jail, she goes to jail. it's not my job to determine who is innocent or guilty. it is my job to make sure i treat people fairly.

graysoncountyffl wrote:

i forcibly removed and arrested a 68 y/o "grandma" from her vehicle when she refused to sign her citation.

I am not sure that Jefferson, Washington and others had that in mind.

choices. they had choices in mind. she consequently made a bad one.

gigag04 wrote:

Chris wrote: i forcibly removed and arrested a 68 y/o "grandma" from her vehicle when she refused to sign her citation.

I can totally see the reasoning for this. Don't get me wrong, but I must ask why is force warranted when there is no show of force at all from the person?

Half of me is playing devil's advocate, but PD is payed by taxpayers dollars and works FOR the citizens. It seems like there would be a different approach just for "refusal to sign."

Maybe I'm crazy but if I can get busted up by a cop just for not signing a ticket - something is wrong with things as they are.

While compliance with a peace officer is important, it seems like there is too much loose ground where I can get slammed about just for saying something the cop didn't like - under the guise of "refusal to comply" or some other justifiable reason for throwing around a tax paying citizen.

-nick

PS - these ARE NOT fighting words, i respect all the LEOs on this board, including Chris. These are just my honest opinions.

under the law, you must be afforded the opportunity to sign a promise to appear for any charge of speeding or possession of an open container. in the majority of courts, the comlaint is not valid if the person refuses to sign the citation. the signature is nothing more than a promise to appear; in other words, a personal recognizance bond. if you don't sign it, you are not promising anything.

i have seen a few courts that will allow the officer to just write refused, but most look at it as something that's required. all the courts i have worked under required a signature. if no signature, they were arrested.

there are plenty of agencies who use this the wrong way. instead of getting consent to search, they will stop for a traffic violation other than speeding and arrest you, search the car, and go about their business. there was a bill a year or two ago that perry vetoed that required police to have a policy that prohibited this. many already do. i like having the option to arrest though. at a class C offense domestic when neither will leave, i like being able to take one or both to prevent further violence. also, if someone is lacking proper identification, or they need further investigating, the time from an arrest can be used to find that. i've found a lot of dangerous felons doing this. i have never stopped someone and arrested them just to search the car; either i get consent, or i get a warrant. i had an agency try to get me to perform a stop like that for them and i refused. it caused a little bit of animosity between us, but i like to think i'm a pretty ethical person. this isn't generally something that happens to joe citizen unless they flat out refuse to sign. most who go to jail after refusing were overly informed of the consequences of their actions.

making people comply is part of the job. i prefer to get physical over other means of force, because i feel like i can control them faster. relying on tools requires reliance on those tools. and sometimes the tools fail leaving you somewhat stuck. but on the other hand, if i can avoid touching someone, i will at all costs. i think my personal skills are pretty good. i recently talked a guy out of his 18 wheeler where he was leaving to kill 2 police officers.

and you don't have to disclaim your posts as "not fighting words." i'm not that defensive about having police officer status. i'm chris first, cop second.

the dept i recently left had tazers. we went to the new use of force policy where there aren't really levels, or steps, but tools available. we could deploy a tazer at any sign of uncooperation. i'm more of a hands on type of guy so i never even used pepper spray that much. some guys tazer and spray every one.

if i told someone to do something and they didn't, i'd probably force them to do it by some means. if a tazer works, then the job is done.

and don't let the terms "grandma" or "grandpa" fool you. i arrested a 74 y/o "grandpa" for murder. another guy in my dept. arrested a 93 y/o "grandma" for aggrevated assault.

i forcibly removed and arrested a 68 y/o "grandma" from her vehicle when she refused to sign her citation.

people don't cooperate, you gotta do something. what would have been better, the cop doing an armbar on this lady and slamming her to the ground, or tazering her until she decided it was in her best interest to comply?