Police 'killed deaf cyclist with stun gun after he failed to obey instructions to stop'

this worthless pig will totally get away with this.
i hope the community gets to him

reply to post by e11888


While I respect your opinion, I will point out that since youhave no background in law enforcement your comments on what we should or should not do are just opinions. No disrespect intended by the way.

The media has no issues reporting our failures, while they ignore what we do get right, so all you see are the reports on the bad. The laws that protect the individual are the same laws that are applied to and protect officers. If anything, civilians have more legal protections that police do.

As with any possibility of a crime, and investigation is done and if the evidence warrants, a PC is sent to the prioseucting attorney for review with the options of filing charges, decling to prosecute, or changing the charges to something more fitting - for both law enforcement as well as civilians.

If a civilian is arrested and law enforcement wants to question, they person in custody is mirandized and can refuse to answerr any questions.

Law enforcement, while also able to invoke the 5th after being mirandized faces 2 more levels civilians do not.
In addition to Miranda, law ernforcement who are under investigation are also read their garrity rights. Since law enforcement uses a chain of command where we can be issued orders by superior officers, we can be ordered to speak about the crime, inluding incriminating informatio.

If we respond, any information can not be used in criminal proceedings against us. However, any information we give can be used against us in an internal affairs investigation. If we refuse to comply with the order, again it cant be used against us in court, however it can be used against us in an internal affairs investigation.

Refusal to answer questions is viewed as an officer being dishonest. There is no presumption of innocence if we refuse to answer questions from a superior officer.

Third, we also are required to comply with 42 USC 1983 - Federal Civil Rights Act. Anytime officer actions violates an individuals right, the FBI can investigate the officers actions to ensure they are in compliance with the federal law.

An officer is protected by a civil immunity shield. If we act while in the perofrmace of our duties, we cannot be sued civiliy. However, if we violate any state / local laws - we lose the immunity. Even if we dont break any state / local laws, but we did violate departmental policy, the city / agency can disassociate itself with the officer, making the officer the lone entity in a civil lawsuit. It means personal items (money / property / etv) are fair game in order to satisy any ruling against the officer.

Again while I respect your point of view, I feel that some people dont adequately understand the laws when it comes to law enforcement. You guys take that non understanding and inerpret it as illegal behavior, when in reality its not.

My speech above is not directed at this thread, but in general.

Please try to keep this in mind before gathering up the torch and pitchforks.

reply to post by FissionSurplus


There is also an atmosphere of arrogance demanding complete compliance with their (state authorized) authority. When you have bullies taking positions as police officers then you end up with uniformed thugs demanding submission (to the point of death in many cases) instead of offering protection. It begins with the recruiting process and is fostered by the lack of proper training.

reply to post by buddha


Well for starters there is no police item that is considered non lethal. Even pepper spray and tasers are calssified as less than lethal. People use the term bullet proof vests, when in reality they are bullet resistant.

Prior to tasers, officers were forced to rely on pepper spray or going hands on. Going hands on can escalate very quickly into a life or death encounter, raising the risk level of the incident becoming a deadly force encounter.

Tasers are employed due to their minor incapactitating effect. If an officer deploys his taser, another officer can place the person into handcuffs, even while the taser is cycling. It cuts down on injuries on both sides, law enforcement as well as civilian.

As far as your blanket comment about police being cowards - you have no idea what your talking about at all. If you did, you would not be making comments that are factually wrong.

If you dont like law enforcement that is certainly your right. However it doesnt mean all law enforcement is the same, and all situations are the same.

To make those types of statements without taking the time to understand how it all works, is in fact cowardly as well. It suggests that you are so paranoid of law enforcement you will beleive anything and everything that places them into a bad light.

Its a 2 way road, so please dont stereotype. God knows you guys get pissed when you perceive officers of doing that.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by ANNED

 

Because the gentleman had a disability, the family would get half of what a victim without a disability would receive because those with disabilities (bearing in mind his age) are regarded as second class citizens to the population at large. Sad sad world.

I hope the Police officer is forced to resign and charges are laid.

I think this is one of the most ignorant comments I have ever seen you make. You really need to live in the now instead of the land of make believe and fairytales.

Originally posted by daggyz
As bad as this sounds, the Police put out requests like this every day. What should they do, assume everyone who disobeys them is deaf?

Should the person ho breaks into your apartment not be treated like a criminal in case they are deaf. Should the speeding motorist not be asked when pulled over to put his hans behind his back in case he is deaf?

What is the solution? All you've put up is an incident assuming the Police are in the wrong.

You are asking the right question to the wrong group of people. In case you didnt notice some members on this site hate law enforcement regardless. Instead of them taking the time to learn the law, they would rather just use their opinons and ignore anything that doesnt support their argument.

As an example you see people complaining about the guys rights being violated, yet they are demanding the officer be stripped of his rights and thrown directly in jail or killed.

The ironies abound...

reply to post by XLR8R


This was not some super athlete....if the policeman was close enough to taser him then he was probably close enough to run up to his bike and stop him by grabbing the handlebars if necessary. Also a bully club to the spokes would stop him (albeit suddenly)....but the risk of damage to the bike and of falling off and getting hurt (again counter intuitive if trying to find out if he was hurt from falling off his bike) is preferable to the quasi-lethal effects of a taser.

Well, the police man obviously doesn't deserve to have that job in life. He should be put on trial and charged. He should learn not to kill people for "disobeying".

Originally posted by spacedonk
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Thanks for your calm, inciteful input into this thread. To be a bore, my original point which I used this story to highlight, was the proposed increased deployment of tasers in the UK: specifically by the London Metropolitan Police Force. As a law enforcement officer, could you say whether you think increased access will equal increased usage?

Is it something you can see becoming the first instead of one of the last resorts for you or your colleagues when apprehending suspects?

Can you say how often you deploy yours (assuming you use one)?

In what scenario beyond 'man with gun' type of situation do you feel it to be not only justified but better for the perp to use a taser?

ty for your time again.

edit on 25-11-2011 by spacedonk because: (no reason given)

Thank you for the questions -
I will start off by saying that there is really no set standard in terms of when they are used. What I mean by this is its completely dependant on the siutuation at hand, number of officers present and involved, person the police are dealing with etc etc.

In my department our subject resistance control (Use of force as others call it) starts off with officer presence. We arrive in a marked vehicle and we wear a uniform. That in and of itself is a use of force. When we talk to people, that is another level of use of force. After that the abilities are present to use verbal judo (IPC / CPI techniques), goiung hands on, pepper spracy / OC, Taser.

Anytime we employ a use of force we are required to not only report it, but to justify the reason for its use.

Personally speaking I am certified in using the M-26 as well as the X-26 Taser. The most times I have ever deployed it as a commissioned LEO within one year was 3 times - 1 incident with probe deployment (incapacitates indivudal for 5 seconds) and the other 2 incidents were drive stuns (not using the cartridge - it becomes pain compiance as it does not incapacitate).

The most ive deployed a taser working public safety in a hospital was about 7 times, all probe deployments, all dealing with individuals who were on illegal narcotics at the time, and 2 of those cases the individual was a biohazard with open woulnds covered in blood (biohazard = communicable disease - Hep / HIV / etc).

I think they are veryt effective tools and I beleive they are responsible for deescalating situations where if we did not have them, it would have resulted in a physical fight.

I think the issue some people are having though is the situations they are used in, as well as the manner they are employed. Its officer discretion, and with any use of force, its viewed as what the officer perceived at the exact moment use of force occured.

Do I support Tasers? - Absolutely - its cut down on the number of officer AND suspect related injuries.
Do I advocate established policies on their use? - Absolutely
Do I advocate officers being required to justify its use - Absolutely

I am also a huge proponent of the newer models of Tasers. The moment the taser is turned on (not deployed) it triggers audio / video recording. This reocrding continues until the taser i sput back into the off posituion. The audio / video is retrieved by an evidence officer (my department) and is logged as evidence. We do not have access to our tasers so we cannot tamper with / turn it off while using it etc).

Is the potential their for misuse? - Absolutely, however they must be viewed on a case by case basis. Stereotyping does not good, for either the police or the civilians we serve.

First and foremost Officers should try to use verbal communications to deescalate and reolve a situation. However, thats not always an option, and contray to popular belief we are not required to to start the the bottom of our resistance control continuum and work our way up.

I personally feel there should be more education about how they work and more training with law enforcement into the ins and outs of taser use during calls. Communication between the police and communictty could go a long way to dispelling some of the myths, as well as highlighting the risks.

When the people and the people we serve are on the same page (which doesnt mean we agree, however we have the same facts) I think it would go a long way to reestablishing trust that has been lost between the 2.

Hope this helps.. sorry for the long winded response.

Originally posted by thejlxc
Well, the police man obviously doesn't deserve to have that job in life. He should be put on trial and charged. He should learn not to kill people for "disobeying".

Agreed. Failure to stop when the rationale for the stop was to see if you were hurt (and not that you were a felon fleeing arrest or had just committed a murder) is not a Capital Crime. A Taser, altho classified as a "less than lethal" weapon has been proven to cause a number of deaths (especially with the elderly, those with heart problems or if abused by repeated tazing). Ergo, the use of a taser in this instance was not justified. The intent of a taser is to bridge the gap between the officer being in harms way and using lethal force when not necessarily justified (ie, some mentally ill person brandishing a steak knife at a distance). Put the taser away boys and use your verbal and physical skills, in that order, first. If I couldnt stop an older gentleman on a bike without having to taser him I would be embarrassed to wear a badge.

reply to post by Xcathdra

I would like to see more stories of an officer going out of his way to save someone. Not all police are bad but they are human and subject to bad decisions. Recruitment and training will make them more effective. But police do their reputation a disservice with episodes like this. I am not saying that this officer was an arrogant bully but there are such officers in every department. You guys know who they are and it is your responsibility to police your own.

Next it will be the mute because he failed to tell them his name sickenly ironic. Why did he have to stop? couldnt have been htat bad

Whats a mentally handicapped deaf person doing riding a bike unsupervised anyway? For all we know, this elderly man could very well have been riding into traffic. Pretty slack of him to use a taser but still.
Reminds me of a video in which like 4 or 5 police cars with lights and sirens blazing tried to round up a calf who was "likely to charge and hurt people" -this is a small calf- shot and maimed it with 12 bullets.
Pathetic.

reply to post by Xcathdra


The good things?
I can honestly say, that I cannot remember EVER a police officer going out of their way to do something good for myself or anybody I know.
Sitting in a van at the bottom of a hill collecting revenue from speeders does not constitute as something "good".

When an irresistable force meets an immovable object . . . something's got to give.

In situations that are not obviously threatening in a serious way, doesn't common sense suggest that in such cases, it should be the police who give way, if only to take a different approach to the same suspect at a later time? My two cents worth.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I would like to see more stories of an officer going out of his way to save someone. Not all police are bad but they are human and subject to bad decisions. Recruitment and training will make them more effective. But police do their reputation a disservice with episodes like this. I am not saying that this officer was an arrogant bully but there are such officers in every department. You guys know who they are and it is your responsibility to police your own.

Ehhh.. Having the police investigate its own would be akin to the SS investigating Auschwitz. Dont get me wrong im all for a high standard for law enforcement, but in this one area I would prefer independant agency investigation into any allegation. When we police our own we run into the problem of people screaming cover up or white wash.

As far as good police action, google / yahoo search i and you will find articles and videos of officers doing their job the way it should be done. I agree incidents like this cause issues for law enforcement, however we must keep in mind not to stereotype all law enforcement.

It would be like people holding all teachers accountible because a teacher had sex with underage students.

Originally posted by Griffo515
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The good things?
I can honestly say, that I cannot remember EVER a police officer going out of their way to do something good for myself or anybody I know.
Sitting in a van at the bottom of a hill collecting revenue from speeders does not constitute as something "good".

Did you even bother to look? Hell even this site has threads dealing with good officer conduct. So long as people continue to stereotype without doing any research on their own, we will continue to have conversations like this, as well as growing animosity simply because people cant be bothered to step outside their comfort zone.

If we use your, as well as some others in this thread, logic then we can argue that all OWS protestors are vigilanties solely bent on creating as much havoc and destruction as possible.

Its a 2 way road.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
When an irresistable force meets an immovable object . . . something's got to give.

In situations that are not obviously threatening in a serious way, doesn't common sense suggest that in such cases, it should be the police who give way, if only to take a different approach to the same suspect at a later time? My two cents worth.

edit on 25-11-2011 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

Some valid points.

The problem though is whats considered obviously threatening?

If we started a thread asking people what they consider threatening, you will find and endless supply of answers. Because of that each situation must be apporached individually as well as reviewed individually. Even police can give an endless supply of answers to that question.

reply to post by Xcathdra


When I say "police their own" I do not mean investigate with the intent to whitewash or coverup. I meant more along the original meaning of the word "police" in it's verb form. The police need to remember there they are there to serve the public good and are not themselves above the law. With the militarization of police via swat teams I would hope that at least we could see a higher standard of bravery in the field also. I cant tell you how much of a turn off it was for me (and no doubt countless millions more) to watch footage of the Columbine school incident over a decade ago....when the police were afraid to go in until over 2 hours after the shooting stopped. I understand the need to gather facts and assess the situation tactically but this was a rescue situation where minutes meant lives. These were school kids. Do you think that if a couple of terrorists had taken over the White House while the First Family was upstairs that the Secret Service and attached Marines would not rush in to neutralize the situation asap? (Rhetorica question - not necessary to answer.)

Something like this would only happen in america.

Blatant to say i know, but it is what i truly believe.