VIDEO: Elderly Woman Tasered, Her Arm Broken, for Not Removing Her Earrings Fast Enough

originally posted by: Discotech
I'll rephrase my question though, what in your opinion would have been better options than tasing ?

Physically restraining her. The visuals on this are not great either as I stated earlier.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
The officers followed procedure. Case closed.

Actually, they did not. He was found to have used excessive force by deploying his taser.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Urantia1111
The officers followed procedure. Case closed.

Actually, they did not. He was found to have used excessive force by deploying his taser.

So she's picking up the check for the $1.75 mil?

They're alleging excessive force was used. Why would the officers blatantly violate protocol in plain view of multiple cameras? To cost them their own jobs?

No, there's some grey area there. I'm guessing she loses.

Where are you reading that she has already won and the officers found guilty?

Yellow is such a d-bag color


a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Next question, can male officers restrain a female suspect ? It's the only logical answer I come up with for them not restraining her, again it comes down to the excuse because... lawsuit. But if male officers are allowed to restrain female suspects then it begs the question why could 8 officers not restrain a petite granny and instead thought their best course of action was just to tase her ?

And more to the point, if she isn't being charged for assault on an officer then we can safely assume that IF (and it's a huge if) they did indeed attempt to restrain her she did not attack them.

So logically we have to assume they made either no attempt or an incredibly weak resulting in failure attempt to restrain her

This whole scenario doesn't really need any extra footage let's use a little common sense, 8 cops are going to have absolutely no problem restraining a granny, if they do actually have issues restraining a granny then in all honestly they shouldn't be cops

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I got tired of my champagne metallic one.

Bragplaining: When you complain about something for the sole purpose of brining it up in conversation to brag about it.

On topic though and I'm surprised noone has brought this up yet but what if instead of her arm she hit her head when she fell and cracked her skull with the full force of a dead weight drop. One dead granny and a "business as usual attitude". How would that have sounded as a headline "elderly woman subsequently killed by correctional officers today because she refused to remove her earrings."


a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Next question, can male officers restrain a female suspect ? It's the only logical answer I come up with for them not restraining her, again it comes down to the excuse because... lawsuit. But if male officers are allowed to restrain female suspects then it begs the question why could 8 officers not restrain a petite granny and instead thought their best course of action was just to tase her ?

You think 6 prison guards wrestling her to the floor would be less harmful than simply incapacitating her by the pre-approved method hanging from their belts?

Non-compliant suspects get tazed so they don't get shot. IF they're lucky.

As truebrit said earlier CAREFULLY APPLIED FORCE she could have been supported and held up by her clothes and directed to and against the wall with no problem. I seriously feel like some people have never been the object or aggressor of applied force and do not understand the very basic physics of weight against resistance divided by force.

a reply to: Urantia1111

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
As truebrit said earlier CAREFULLY APPLIED FORCE she could have been supported and held up by her clothes and directed to and against the wall with no problem. I seriously feel like some people have never been the object or aggressor of applied force and do not understand the physics of weight against resistance divided by force.

a reply to: Urantia1111

These aren't physicists. They're jail guards.

If given the choice of being "restrained" by a bunch of them or being tazed by one, I recommend you choose the tazer.

a reply to: Hecate666

And I love what everyone seems to be setting aside in this thread. The beezatcher was a criminal ... a frikkin thief.

She didn't deserve the leniency of the taser. What she deserved was to have those eight officers go at her for ten or fifteen minutes with their nightsticks. But ... I guess they weren't really trying to be judge, jury and executioner.

The one thing I came to appreciate during my time spent in the ME: Virtually no petty theft. Wait'll Sharia shows up in this country. I hate thieves. They dork up everyone's quality of life.

As someone who has received both restrained is better all day everyday.

a reply to: Urantia1111

a reply to: Urantia1111

First don't be so stupid, you really think she's going to put up that much of a fight that she gets injured and who said anything about wrestling her to the floor ? There's many options to restrain somebody without putting them face down in the dirt

Secondly given the choice I'd rather be wrestled to the ground than have my motor nervous system disrupted, I've been mildly electrocuted and it wasn't very pleasant, I imagine a taser would be much the same or worse

a reply to: Snarl

And you seem to made an even bigger mistake and have forgotten that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of ones peers. Last I heard the booking office isn't a court of law and cops aren't jury and judge as much as they'd like us to believe.

a reply to: Urantia1111

Excuse me, but first of all, one does not need to be a physicist to understand the concept of effective and safe restraint.

Do you know what job role does require that sort of training and expertise?

Oh yes! I remember! Law enforcement!

originally posted by: Urantia1111
So she's picking up the check for the $1.75 mil?

The trial has not started.

Where are you reading that she has already won and the officers found guilty?

I did not say she won but the officer was found to have used excessive force:

An internal affairs investigation was launched and concluded three things:
•Mason was not complying with orders to remove her earrings
•Mason was *not* a physical threat to the 7 officers around her
•And that "the deployment of the taser was inappropriate in this event" Source

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
Bragplaining: When you complain about something for the sole purpose of brining it up in conversation to brag about it.

It has 600+ horsepower.

On topic though and I'm surprised noone has brought this up yet but what if instead of her arm she hit her head when she fell and cracked her skull with the full force of a dead weight drop. One dead granny and a "business as usual attitude". How would that have sounded as a headline "elderly woman subsequently killed by correctional officers today because she refused to remove her earrings."

She could have easily been injured any number of ways. The best way for her not to have been injured was to remove her earrings.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Urantia1111
So she's picking up the check for the $1.75 mil?

The trial has not started.

Where are you reading that she has already won and the officers found guilty?

I did not say she won but the officer was found to have used excessive force:

An internal affairs investigation was launched and concluded three things:
•Mason was not complying with orders to remove her earrings
•Mason was *not* a physical threat to the 7 officers around her
•And that "the deployment of the taser was inappropriate in this event" Source

Fair enough. I read the OP thoroughly twice and the department was claiming the exact opposite in that source.

All 7 officers must have somehow been mistaken about proper prerequisite for tazing?

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Hecate666

And I love what everyone seems to be setting aside in this thread. The beezatcher was a criminal ... a frikkin thief.

She didn't deserve the leniency of the taser. What she deserved was to have those eight officers go at her for ten or fifteen minutes with their nightsticks. But ... I guess they weren't really trying to be judge, jury and executioner.

The one thing I came to appreciate during my time spent in the ME: Virtually no petty theft. Wait'll Sharia shows up in this country. I hate thieves. They dork up everyone's quality of life.

Yeah, theft. What did she steal, the crown jewels? Even if she was a master thief, it's not that she won't get punished. That's what the jail sentence will be for after she's been to court. I don't care what she deserves, it's not up to the police morons to dish out any punishment without a sentence, because they are thick as sh*t, plus it's not in their job description.

Furthermore, people who steal, especially at that age may have something wrong with them. People steal for amusement [kids, teens], out of desperation or because they have a mental issue. The police morons however treat everyone like a big burly male murderer. And that is why they are not judges, they haven't got the capacity.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

Was removing the earrings necessary? Yes. Was using force, especially a taser shot, necessary to achieve that end? There is no physical way that restraining the woman and removing the earrings by CAREFULLY APPLIED main strength, would have had a worse potential outcome, than electrocuting an elderly woman to the point where she fell and broke her damned arm. If a LEO needs a taser to process an elderly lady through booking, then either that elderly lady is clan master of a crew of lethal assassins, or that LEO is a streak of urine and shouldn't have a job.

Interestingly enough, psych techs remove piercings and jewelry from large psychotic people every..single..day and are not ALLOWED to tase, beat, "take down", "foot sweep", choke, or beat into submission the people whose jewelry they are removing. And if they DO these things, they are charged with felonies.

Yet, somehow, they manage it. How, I ask you, can this be? It is a mystery.