Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

Quiet, you! You promised in the earlier post you'd already put in your 2 cents. You're over your two cent limit!

 

Ah dang!!! okay okay, I'll try not to post until saturday, so my cents will be equal...

 

I can't resist to play the devil's advocate a bit...

If we ASSUME that the 10-year old was the ultimate hellspawn, totally spoiled lost cause of an infant that *really* only needed a decent spanking to snap out of it, would that make *any* difference in how you judge the police officer's actions?

Alternatively, if we ASSUME that the girl was the perfect bambi-eyed charmer, polite and smart, just throwing a tantrum due to sleep deprivation/low blood sugar/genuinely stupid parenting/[another possible excuse] while the cop was the "bad guy"?

The thing is, I'm sensing that a lot of the discussion is just circling around these two extremes while gladly getting confused about the ramifications for these. You can't really assume anything from either as none of us was *there*, but if you're to assume something extreme from either part, wouldn't it be fair to assume something similarly extreme from the other?

 

Your second question is a fragment -- you missed asking whatever it was you wanted to pose. I've never assumed either extreme and my opinion includes both extremes. The girl was not a threat, had not committed a crime, and was only pissing off her mother. The mother wanted the police to intervene in a dispute about personal hygiene -- the police officer should have declined.

 

lots of assumptions, lets stick to the cold hard facts

 

Whoops, totally forgot about this thread. There have been some interesting points made, but i'm going to throw my support behind joacquin. It's been said many times that the police force attracts a certain type of person.

 

Pretty much - tasers are a great replacement for guns.

I don't think it's (in general) appropriate to use force just to get someone to do something unless that 'something' is to get them in a police car while you're arresting them. I consider tasers to be a high level of force that wouldn't be appropriate just to do this - they're great for incapacitating dangerous people though. This case is ridiculous on a whole range of levels - a police officer shouldn't be using force to get anyone to take a shower. Getting people to take a shower is not in the scope of a police officer's job.

The thing about it being a stun taser rather than a barbed shot - it's less drastic, yes - but why are the police going around using glorified cattle prods to push people around outside the scope of their job? They're not our herders.

 

Aik, he was arresting the girl at the point he used the taser.

its nice to blame the officer, but it was dispatch which sent him there, what was the official complaint? I doubt dispatch would send an officer as a nanny

 

You'd be surprised... Ah damn, I wasn't supposed to say anything. Forget what I said..

 

All of which is irrelevant. The girl kicked the cop in the balls. Ergo. She was being violent. Fact, not opinion, contrary to what you were claiming.

You want to see an opinion? Here's one:

 

Triactus, you missed my point. My point was that any force poses risks there. I don't care if it's a taser, a baton, or 200+ lbs of body force.

I'd say it makes a good altermative to the baton (not replacement, as you want both options).

I agree, but that's unfortunately not the debate. The debate isn't whether it's appropriate for police to make kids take showers, but whether it's appropriate for them to use a taser in the arrest of a minor.

You've never actually tried to manhandle an unruly ten-year-old, have you? Despite the classic perception, kids are well equipped to cause damage, and the human body is frail. A kick to the nads isn't even the worst of it. A bite to the hand can cause massive bleeding if it's in the wrong place (the fleshy bit between thumb and fingers, also one of the most common places). Adults fight the way they think is most likely to let them win, which usually means thought-out blows to percieved weak points. A kid will just use anything and everything. They blindly flail against anything nearby, easily hitting many, many points in quick succession. They bite, they claw, they gouge. Don't underestimate the damage a truely wild child can do.

 

The age of the victim is not irrevelant, nor is the reason the officer was there irrevelant. By using force in a situation which the police officer should not have been involved he placed the child in jeopardy. That was wrong. That a child would lash out in a situation where she felt she was in danger should have been anticipated by the officer -- he was over his head in dealing with a ten year old. Some people should not be in law enforcement.

NOG you routinely manhandle ten year olds?

 

I even agree that the officer pretty much provoked the use of force, but once he decided to arrest her, I believe the use of a taser was appropriate. If you want to fire him, fire him for causing the whole situation, not using a taser.

As for 10-year-olds, I have been one, and I have tried to restrain several. The best option is to get them somewhere with nothing delicate (we had a padded room at the Y, it was for wrestling, but it worked for this, too) and let them tire themselves out. And exhausted child is easy to control.

 

at 7 one of my teachers didnt have strength to drag me to the headmasters room, when I grabbed the radiator, I wasnt being detached.

no he wasnt, he arrested the child safely with minimum force, he didnt strike her, he didnt CS her and he didnt resort to blunt force from a baton - success.

 

Shoshino you are assuming the use of a taser is safe on a child -- there is not enough evidence to validate that assumption (nor will there ever be).

 

noone has ever been killed by drive stun.

I have no doubt that you will win, a good hit will take down a ten year old, of course that will leave physical damage.

 

Shoshino made my point before I could, Montresor. The issue isn't if you win, but at what cost. Sure, if all else failed, I could kill the 10-year-old, but that's about as bad a failure as I could get. Hell, I'd even put that on par (not above) me getting killed by the kid!

Subduing a child with no serious or lasting damage to the child and (preferably) no serious or lasting damage to yourself is not always as easy as it sounds.