Cop Tasers Fleeing Handcuffed Girl, Head injuries put her in vegetative state

[dyre]

Probably shouldn't have run from the cop. Just a thought.

Though, it's too bad she got unlucky on the fall. No one deserves to be put into a vegetative state.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

The fact is, this cop was only doing his job, and his actions fell well within established protocol.

actually, that's not the fact.

the established protocol for his dept clearly states not to tase someone in handcuffs and not to tase someone that's fleeing.

 

[Jedoro]

Anyone else laugh at the sound she made before hitting the ground?

OT: He was obviously capable of catching her without having to tackle, because if you can use your hands to grab something off your belt, you're not running as fast as possible. Honestly, I'd have pushed her into the car she was running towards, because sheet metal gives a lot more than concrete, and the more likely injury would be around her hips.

Cops are trusted to use force, up to and including bullets to the brainpan, so I'd like to think they shouldn't make such quick decisions when they don't have to. I feel like someone that small and in handcuffs doesn't require a split-second decision.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Let's say I'm hired as a security guard at your local mall. You go there, hang around, someone doesn't like you hanging around, so they send me to ask you to leave. I do so, polite since it's a first request.

Yoy protest and ask me why, obviously.

Now assume I'm like that cop, lazy and overagressive, so I grab you and put your head to a wall a few times so you stop talking back and I don't have to answer anything.
Would that be a justified course of action, putting you in hospital with grave head injury because I'd have been too lazy to answer a question?

That's the exact same situation as in the video you know.

That was nothing like the situation in the video.
The girl was drugged up went driving and was involved in 2 hit and runs. Then when being taken to a police station to be charged she tried to escape, partially cuffed and running towards a busy highway. The police officer was unfit to catch her, and knew that if he shot he he would kill her, of he tackled her he would probably hurt both of them, and if he tazed her hecould subdue her. So he went for the tazer. On the way down the girl tragically sustained a head injury, and (possibly aggravated by the drugs in her system) went into a coma.

Now, the policeman did say that if he was given the same situation again he would make the same choice, because it was the least likely to create a harmful situation for either of them. unfortunately even the most unlikely circumstances have to happen some times, and this was sadly one of those times.

He didn't intend to kill her, and his actions only exposed her to minimal danger while trying to reapprehend a quite serious offender, it is only by chance that she hit her head while falling and recieved brain damage, not by wanton neglect or use of extreme force (tazers are, after all, still considered non-lethal, because when used they are not intended to kill).

 

[Timberwolf0924]

Moral of the Story

Don't think you're some hardass who's going to get away and your ass won't get tazered.
"Oh no poor girl, boo hoo!"
Dumb broad shouldn't have acted stupid, cause now she really is.

 

[GrandmaFunk]

as so I take it you are in the law enforcement field in the same department as he is and have those protocols at hand? I mean if not then you are just making it up and would look silly

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted an independent review of the incident," FHP spokesperson Sgt. Steve Gaskins said. "Their investigation found that the trooper?s actions were legal and within the scope of his duties."

apparently the department says they ARE withing protocol and legal

silly would be not noticing that they are quoted right in the article:

Hayslett said Cole violated FHP's taser policy which states:

"Fleeing cannot be the sole reason for the deployment."

...

An Office of Inspector General Investigation Unit report states: "Although the FHP policy on Electronic Control Devices states that a member should not use the device on a handcuffed prisoner, it also provides that there may be situations that conflict with this policy."

So, the official policy is to NOT do what he did, but they leave a "case-by-case" escape clause which is why he was cleared by an internal investigation.

that doesn't mean he acted within protocol, simply that the review board didn't think he acted illegally.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

That was nothing like the situation in the video.

It's exactly the same. It's violence against someone who is not a threat, out of lazyness.

No, in your analogy the person had done absolutely nothing wrong, and got their head deliberately bashed in by abusive mall security. In the actual event the person already guilty of several crimes was in the process of commiting another one: resisting arrest, and therefore it was perfectly within the cops power to stop her using reasonable force, resonable force being the non-lethal weapons he had been given to apprehend offenders.

The police officer was unfit to catch her

Of which the consequence should've been that the suspect was able to run away. The fault of the police for allowing people to work who are uncapable of working.

Yes, and in cases that the police officer cannot physically catch an offender what do they do? Just give up. Does the law say that if you can outrun a policeman in a fair race that you are cleared of all charges? No, of course not. He has non-lethal devices for instances such as this, to stop an offender that cannot be aprehended by good old-fashioned running.

That the policeman chooses to be obese and the police force tolerates disfunctional employees is a poor excuse for the use of deadly violence against peacefull people.

I agree that his physical state is a disgrace, and this guy is unfit for purpose, but the girl was not "peacefull" nor was the violence "deadly". This was a clear offender trying to evade a police officer who used non-lethal means to aprehend her, and unfortunately was screwed over by the wheel of fortune, because she fell down the wrong way and hit her head hard enough to cause brain damage.

You treat it like someone running away is a crime on par with genocide at least, but it's little more than how the game is played.

Running away is not "a crime on par with genocide" nor did I ever alude to that, but it is a crime, and as such the police have the authority to aprehend someone running away, and to use their non-lethal weapons in doing so, and it isn't some sort of game with 'honor rules' or somesuch nonsense,

Criminals break the law and attempt to evade capture, policemen try to enforce the law and arrest criminals with minimal force.

You said it, not me: "policemen try to enforce the law and arrest criminals with minimal force." using a tazer is a non-lethal method to stop someone breaking the law. Lethal force was never intended. if it had been then he would have used his real gun.

Killing someone because one is too lazy to run two steps is more like maximal force.

Again, there was no intention of killing her. His only intent was aprehending her with minimal harm to both him and her. In that respect using the tazer was in some ways justified, although the specifics of where he used it could have led to less chance of her injury (over softer ground.)

 

[GoaThief]

As far as I was aware, tasers were supposed to be a "non-lethal" alternative to a firearm.

Clearly this was complete bullshit, merely serving as backdoor for commonplace use.

The worst part is a large proportion of the public see no problem with it, one wonders when tasers are being used indiscriminately on them for daring to disagree with an unjust law or political issue if their positions would be reconsidered. Just think, a mere 60 years ago a "civilised" nation committed one of the worst atrocities in history - how much worse would it be if it happened tomorrow with these policing methods already established? It's very possible, youngsters have not heeded warnings from the past (look no further than this off-topic forum) except this time around instead of Jews and "undesirables" it will be Muslims and "undesirables".

Video makes me sick to my stomach, as it should any rational person.