Cop tasers man in eye

reply to post by BlueTriangle


Really? I thought the were worn to intimidate violent offenders into 'coming along peacefully', or for SWAT when they need to capture people as opposed to kill them.

Never once did i imagine a taser-gun being used on a drunk.

*SIGH*...

I'm sure the cop really tried to taser this guy in the eye.... thats what they're all about you know...

It was an accident.

If the cop did something wrong, it will come out in the investigation and punishment will be handed out.

The taser and it's misuse is a growing problem, but it is really symptomatic of a larger systemic problem in America and surely other countries, as well.

If a civilian gets hurt in a confrontation with a cop, it doesn't matter if the cop used a pistol, a taser, his baton, his fists, or a 106mm recoilless rifle, the internet will be abuzz with allegations of police brutality.

Tasers can be misused and some recent cases typify that, but let's look at the case of Rodney King.

Rodney King was high on something and out of control. Police tried talking to him and that didn't work. They tried to subdue him physically and that didn't work. They pulled out the taser and that didn't work and he continued to lunge at officers.

So, they got serious about the problem and subdued the guy with brute force and some nifty baton work.

One big problem, well actually, two big problems.

Someone was video taping almost the entire incident AND when the media got a hold of the tape, they showed only the beating that resulted from all the other failed attempts to subdue Rodney King.

I saw the full tape once. I saw the edited tape no fewer than one thousand times.

Cops must use force, but when they do, there is usually trouble and the taser has seemed to satisfy the safety and liability needs of departments.

One problem, however, is that it's just a little too easy to use and the consequences are usually temporary, thus some people get tased when a strong arm and some backup would do the trick pretty much painlessly.

The best thing to do when something like this happens is for responsible people to overcome the impulse to rush to ATS and other sites to post a thread with a sensational spin in the hopes of lots of points and some short-lived notoriety.

There's more I could say, but I'll leave it at that.


[edit on 2007/10/31 by GradyPhilpott]

Ok... this has got to be very suffering for the Toronto man. At my school, a student was blinded in both eyes because another student threw a text book out of the bus windows. i feel his pain.

Could be an accident, but if an incident like this ever happens again i'm gonna go nutz.

[edit on 31-10-2007 by die_another_day]

Originally posted by elevatedone
If the cop did something wrong, it will come out in the investigation and punishment will be handed out.

I think he will get a slap on the wrist, nothing more. In the mean time, a man will have to live the rest of his life with one eye.

Originally posted by die_another_day
At my school, a student was blinded in both eyes because another student threw a text book out of the bus windows.

i feel his pain.

That gives new meaning to the phrase "She blinded me with science".

Sorry for that.

Peace

Hmm, I wonder if we would have all these Taser incidents if people just didn't break the law and acted responsibly in the first place?

I am not saying that there are not police officers who overreact to situations. But how about avoiding interacting with the police at all in the first place? Seems to work for me.

Two thumbs up to TOPD

Seriously I believe the officers intentions were not to shoot the man in the eye, the two probes that are shot out usually spread apart by more or less half a foot.

Originally posted by craig732
But how about avoiding interacting with the police at all in the first place? Seems to work for me.

that is a policy i try to live by. i don't talk to cops but i 'think' you mean obey...either way

imo, i am thinking it was an accident this dude got it in the eyeball, BUT that also tells me the cop was probably trying to hit him in the face.

you aim for the body and hit the eyeball instead?

i doubt it

Well I have a novel idea here......
How about when you've been out drinking and are "intoxicated", simply going home. If you do something wrong, rather than becoming belligerant, how about compliance with police directives.

I'm just betting, if one is compliant, then one will not get tasered. Just a guess. BTW, right...I'm sure the policeman was aiming for the drunk's eye. Bad accident..nothing more nothing less. He should have simply did what the cop asked him to do.

reply to post by KnowItAll


Maybe the guy had a life, and responsibilities thereof.

If, for example; you owned a business and you were going through a patch that could make or break your career - what you wouldn't want is a DnD charge against you.

Or say if you had a kid who was ill, or that you'd fallen out with your wife and she'd phoned to tell you to come home after you'd spent the night drinking yourself to a surly oblivion.

I'm not saying the law should make exceptions, but don't these cops have something better to do with their time than rounding up drunks?

I couldn't imagine losing and eye in an accident after having it for my whole life.

I don't think I could deal with that scenario when the 'accident' was brought on by an officer trying to subdue me. I guess it's still non-lethal even if you walk away minus a few body parts.

What's next, cutting off fingers KGB style?

Popping in with no information in hand to back me up, but last year I ran across an article that stated that statistics showed after the Taser had been on the street in a community it was a matter of months before the reports showed a dramatic increase in the shots to the face, the genitals on guys and the breasts on women. Most depts had to issue new regs forbidding targeting of these areas, then a program generally ended up being put in place which required documentation of the areas hit for each use. Which I am SURE was done accurately.

I found several department's regs on the subject online, with these interestingly frustrated sounding directives worded something like "All officers are to sign an acknowledgement that this practice is against department regulations", "Any further strikes to the genitals or facial areas will require that the probes be removed and the citizen treated by a physician at a local hospital", "Officers will cease to remove probes in the face, eyes, or genital areas in an attempt to avoid the adverse use documentation procedure - further violations will result in suspension without pay"

It wasn't too hard to find, I think all I did was google for Taser + "genitals", "genitalia", "breasts", "head" and "face". A number of pd's post their policies and directives online.

I suspect a LOT of this will cease if they require "taser-cam" on every one. Of course, they'll eventually just stick something over the camera lens.

I doubt they'd go for my "tit-for-tat" program, where the officer that uses a taser gets one in exactly the same place later for the same duration - as a training aid on appropriate use of force. After all, don't they supposedly get a tasing during training to show them what it's like? Just expand the idea. Did you think that hitting that lady 15 times was a good idea? We'll see - bzzt bzzt bzzt...

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
Not enough information to draw a conclusion, but thanks for posting this story, we can keep an eye out and see where this one leads

You didn't... You did too !!!

I'm not really aware how accurate the shot from a tazer is, wether it follows a direct line from the point of where it is shot from, or if it can deviate due to being tethered to the device itself, but this to me comes across like a cop aiming for a shoulder and hitting the guy directly between the eyes.

Either he was very careless when deploying the barb, OR these things need a severe re-think in how they work.

If you can aim for the larger areas of the body, and yet somehow hit something as vital as an eye, something is terribly amiss.

In my opinion, the result here outweighs the need to use the device. At the very least, I can see this becoming a law suit costing a hell of a lot to the public.

I have one problem with all of this. How can anyone of you decide what happened from one news report? There are very few details. Did I miss a part of the story? I am fine with speculation and discussion, but when you come in making statements that he did it on purpose, I mean come on. Everyone has their opinion but we really do not know what happened yet. How about we wait until it is proven whether he did it on purpose or not first? Stranger things have happened.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Good reply, Tom.

One company puts out a Taser (M-18 advanced taser) that comes with AFID(*) 'tags'. These are little discs that come out with the probes and enable on-scene investigations to link back to the exact Taser that was used.

Don't know how prevalent this is, but it sounds like a good idea. I'd guess they had chips in them like those store tags to allow location and tracking, but they at least have a number on them. Currently (according to the site) not req. by law.

(*)What's a bit amusing is the description of the tags. There's 20-40 of them per shot, so that the large number of and small size makes clean up not practical. This begs the question that they did this is because it's commonly known in the industry that the "user" will try to hide the use of the weapon, .


[edit on 31-10-2007 by Badge01]

I feel the cops have become taser happy. Probably due to the fact they feel it is a "non-lethal" weapon.

With that said, I'd like to say that when i think about being tasered in the eye it makes me go...

o_O

OOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

I think there is no harm in condemning the Police as this is what they
do to the citizen any more. I feel truly sorry for what are left of the good decent officers out there working for the better of mankind but they are few and far between.. I have relatives in law enforcement both local and federal and we have had this conversation before one agrees one disagrees at any rate I am no
expert..

Respectfully
GEO

If a cop tells you to stop, you stop. PERIOD. Anything that happens after that is YOUR FAULT for not obeying authorty.

Do you really want to see the US become a "beanbag gun" country like Great Brittan? The police ARE enforcing the laws, SHUT UP and let them do their job.

reply to post by geocom


I'd agree in cases where police use violence against citizens it should be almost a 'guilty until proven innocent' situation. Higher standard of care.

They NEED to realize that WE emply THEM, and they are NOT here to be our overlords.

As I've said before it's reasonably easy to distinguish between 'citizen' gone astray and 'perpetrator/predator' purposely committing a crime.

Though some situations are not clear cut, when they taze little kids and grannies, I think it's safe to say they messed up and should be put on a desk job. Period.