UK using tasers and "spit-hoods" on children as young as 11 and deliberately targeting black children in particular.

[Specter Von Baren]

Tasers Used on Children under 11 in U.K, UNICEF says

Unicef says Tasers and spit-hoods are disproportionately used on children of color.

www.newsweek.com

I didn't even know what a spit-hood was until this. Isn't this a method used to suffocate people?

 

[Houseman]

I didn't even know what a spit-hood was until this. Isn't this a method used to suffocate people?

The article says it's made out of mesh, and made to stop people from spitting or biting, so I would assume it would be like a face mask that we're all familiar with by now. Of course it would allow people to breathe.

 

[09philj]

Just because you're very unlikely to be shot dead by a police officer in the UK (Because most of them don't have guns, in line with the general population), doesn't mean they won't rough you up badly. There's a reasonable amount of police brutality but since it's perpetrated against people without much power to complain and they don't die it goes under the radar. I can't fathom a situation where an officer could legitimately consider it appropriate or proportionate to taser a child, even an armed child, because even the most dainty police officer in full kit can absolutely body a twelve year old.

 

[happyninja42]

Just because you're very unlikely to be shot dead by a police officer in the UK (Because most of them don't have guns, in line with the general population), doesn't mean they won't rough you up badly. There's a reasonable amount of police brutality but since it's perpetrated against people without much power to complain and they don't die it goes under the radar. I can't fathom a situation where an officer could legitimately consider it appropriate or proportionate to taser a child, even an armed child, because even the most dainty police officer in full kit can absolutely body a twelve year old.

Well that's the whole point of weapons, is to provide you with more lethality than your body can normally allow. And there are some pretty beefy 12 year olds out there that I've seen. And while I agree with you, it reminds me of a criticism I've seen about doing similar things to the elderly, for the same reason. And I'm like "yeah but I mean, they might have a gun (in the US), and you don't need much finger strength to shoot a round. And even if a knife is limited in lethality, when compared to a gun, they can still cause serious harm to someone, perhaps another person nearby." So I think the possibility that a 12 year old might need to be tazed, is perfectly valid. Do I think it's actually the case that it's warranted when it's happened in the past? Probably not.

And as a note, thinking back to my physical capabilities at 12 years old, with my martial arts training, and general speed, if I had been of a mind to actually want to hurt people, I could've hurt a lot of people, especially with a knife. So yeah, while I don't condone tazing children, I don't agree with the idea that their are zero circumstances where a 12 year old might be out of control to the point that tazing them is the best course of action, to minimize harm to them and others.

 

[Buyetyen]

Oink oink and toodle pip, old chaps.

 

[Revnak]

tHE cops, fOlks

 

[Neuromancer]

ACAB.

 

[Agema]

Just because you're very unlikely to be shot dead by a police officer in the UK (Because most of them don't have guns, in line with the general population), doesn't mean they won't rough you up badly. There's a reasonable amount of police brutality but since it's perpetrated against people without much power to complain and they don't die it goes under the radar. I can't fathom a situation where an officer could legitimately consider it appropriate or proportionate to taser a child, even an armed child, because even the most dainty police officer in full kit can absolutely body a twelve year old.

Doesn't matter where you are in the world, give the police a law to enforce and tools to enforce it with, as time goes on they'll use those powers more and for lesser reasons.

I can totally fathom why a policeman uses a taser against an 11-year-old: it's easy. Saves the effort of physical retraint and risk of being kicked, punched or bitten. Don't have to waste time, just zap and move on to the next task. The other factor is of course that lots of people, law enforcement included, think they're a bunch of little gobshites who misbehave because they weren't properly disciplined with pain/violence, and this is going to be a lesson they should have had more of earlier. Or the officers simply despise and hold in contempt people that they police, and there's a certain vindictive pleasure in doling out punishment.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

ACAB, even your shitty cousin just trying to do the right thing.

 

[Gordon_4]

Tasers Used on Children under 11 in U.K, UNICEF says

Unicef says Tasers and spit-hoods are disproportionately used on children of color.

www.newsweek.com

I didn't even know what a spit-hood was until this. Isn't this a method used to suffocate people?

You ever see Con-Air? Remember the guy who got gagged and bagged? It’s basically that, without the electric tape. So you can breath through it but it hinders them from spitting or biting staff.

 

[Gordon_4]

Doesn't matter where you are in the world, give the police a law to enforce and tools to enforce it with, as time goes on they'll use those powers more and for lesser reasons.

I can totally fathom why a policeman uses a taser against an 11-year-old: it's easy. Saves the effort of physical retraint and risk of being kicked, punched or bitten. Don't have to waste time, just zap and move on to the next task. The other factor is of course that lots of people, law enforcement included, think they're a bunch of little gobshites who misbehave because they weren't properly disciplined with pain/violence, and this is going to be a lesson they should have had more of earlier. Or the officers simply despise and hold in contempt people that they police, and there's a certain vindictive pleasure in doling out punishment.

Well, some of them really ARE little fuckin’ gobshites. Another reason I can see them tazing people this young rather than overriding physical force of restraint is that can't accuse a taser of feeling you up.

It’s still a shitty look and I doubt very many of these would meet the rules of force escalation if examined closely and rigorously. But I knew some kids who were pretty rough and violent in the 12-15 bracket when I grew up, so it’s not something outside the realm of possibility.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Just because you're very unlikely to be shot dead by a police officer in the UK (Because most of them don't have guns, in line with the general population), doesn't mean they won't rough you up badly. There's a reasonable amount of police brutality but since it's perpetrated against people without much power to complain and they don't die it goes under the radar. I can't fathom a situation where an officer could legitimately consider it appropriate or proportionate to taser a child, even an armed child, because even the most dainty police officer in full kit can absolutely body a twelve year old.

*waves from Australia*

Australian police officers are armed, but wrongful shootings are rare (and wrongful can include "they were on crystal meth and attacking people with a knife, but it might not have been necessary to kill them", which is a specific level of wrongful). Police brutality and/or people dying suspiciously in prisons, especially certain kinds of people, are not so rare.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Just because you're very unlikely to be shot dead by a police officer in the UK (Because most of them don't have guns, in line with the general population), doesn't mean they won't rough you up badly. There's a reasonable amount of police brutality but since it's perpetrated against people without much power to complain and they don't die it goes under the radar. I can't fathom a situation where an officer could legitimately consider it appropriate or proportionate to taser a child, even an armed child, because even the most dainty police officer in full kit can absolutely body a twelve year old.

We grow our 11 year olds big and vicious. They have very sharp teeth.

But on a more serious note I know a long time ago when I was in school a 9 year old kid put a teacher in hospital by smashing a chair leg into her leg.

I'll say it sounds bad 11 year olds are being tazed etc but I'd kind of need to know the context.

Never underestimate the capacity for some-one to be a psycho little shit. Like do you want the police to get stabbed by the psycho little shit with a knife or worse for them to stab some-one else?

Well, some of them really ARE little fuckin’ gobshites. Another reason I can see them tazing people this young rather than overriding physical force of restraint is that can't accuse a taser of feeling you up.

It’s still a shitty look and I doubt very many of these would meet the rules of force escalation if examined closely and rigorously. But I knew some kids who were pretty rough and violent in the 12-15 bracket when I grew up, so it’s not something outside the realm of possibility.

Also a Taser is less likely to break a bone trying to fight to get them down.

 

[Gordon_4]

We grow out 11 year olds big and vicious. They have very sharp teeth.

But on a more serious note I know a long time ago when I was in school a 9 year old kid put a teacher in hospital by smashing a chair leg into her leg.

I'll say it sounds bad 11 year olds are being tazed etc but I'd kind of need to know the context.

Never underestimate the capacity for some-one to be a psycho little shit. Like do you want the police to get stabbed by the psycho little shit with a knife or worse for them to stab some-one else?



Also a Taser is less likely to break a bone trying to fight to get them down.

Outside of some cases with 11 year olds who just get the growth spurt end all growth spurts, I doubt trained police officers would have to resort to methods that risk broken bones to restrain someone under the age of 14 who is otherwise unarmed and not any other kind of risk.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Outside of some cases with 11 year olds who just get the growth spurt end all growth spurts, I doubt trained police officers would have to resort to methods that risk broken bones to restrain someone under the age of 14 who is otherwise unarmed and not any other kind of risk.

I wonder how Japanese police cope, since if anime and videogames taught me anything it's that the average Japanese teenager is fit to fight and kill god.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Outside of some cases with 11 year olds who just get the growth spurt end all growth spurts, I doubt trained police officers would have to resort to methods that risk broken bones to restrain someone under the age of 14 who is otherwise unarmed and not any other kind of risk.

Even the safest methods with some-one determined enough could lead to a broken bone if things go bad.

 

[Gordon_4]

Even the safest methods with some-one determined enough could lead to a broken bone if things go bad.

Correctly applied restraint technique hurts, but it does not injure if that makes any sense. Restraining a single person, even a child, requires at minimum two people. Ideally each officer will control a single side of the body so that they limit their captive’s ability to respond.

The one I was taught could be done by one person but most professional security services and law enforcement follow a best practice of patrolling in pairs.

 

[happyninja42]

Correctly applied restraint technique

That's the crux in most of these cases though. CORRECTLY applying restraint, versus things like sitting on their necks until they die. Which is why a lot of people see measures like these being deployed, and feeling apprehensive. Which frankly I agree with.

 

[Eacaraxe]

That's the crux in most of these cases though. CORRECTLY applying restraint, versus things like sitting on their necks until they die. Which is why a lot of people see measures like these being deployed, and feeling apprehensive. Which frankly I agree with.

I'd add to this training police in rapid dominance tactics -- killology shit or not -- is in itself a cause of unnecessary harm, whether or not that's paired with conflict de-escalation strategies. Rapid dominance is in itself a deliberate show of unnecessary force to act as deterrent, which translates in terms of training to teaching officers unnecessary force isn't merely justified, it's ideal in circumstances in which further force "might be" avoided (just, never mind the inherently escalatory nature of it).

 

[Gordon_4]

I'd add to this training police in rapid dominance tactics -- killology shit or not -- is in itself a cause of unnecessary harm, whether or not that's paired with conflict de-escalation strategies. Rapid dominance is in itself a deliberate show of unnecessary force to act as deterrent, which translates in terms of training to teaching officers unnecessary force isn't merely justified, it's ideal in circumstances in which further force "might be" avoided (just, never mind the inherently escalatory nature of it).

Overwheming force is not inherently escalating, but it is designed to trigger the fight or flight response with the (obvious) preference being flight. It’s a technique as ancient as we are. It’s not an ideal method - and was in fact the opposite of what I was taught when I got a job as a security guard for a few months. We were taught to stay calm, keep our voices level and keep our reactions dispassionate if that makes any sense.

Then again, a prison is not the environment I was being trained in and has several more high risk factors attached to it.