72 year old woman tasered in Austin. Justified?? (unemployment, cost)

[austin-steve]

I was eating in Chipotle today and a couple of Austin cops were in there eating also. I walked over and asked if they saw the video of the 72 old lady getting tasered. They had. I asked if they thought she deserved it, and one of them said "definitely" and the other nodded in agreement.

He explained that once you lay hands on someone, the odds of that person getting injured increases greatly, whereas the taser defuses the situation immediately. They both agreed it looks bad on TV no matter what.

So there you have it.

Steve

[austinite45]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I was eating in Chipotle today and a couple of Austin cops were in there eating also. I walked over and asked if they saw the video of the 72 old lady getting tasered. They had. I asked if they thought she deserved it, and one of them said "definitely" and the other nodded in agreement.

Did you actually expect them to turn against one of their own? What makes them authorities in deciding whether the 72 yr old woman deserved tasering?

He explained that once you lay hands on someone, the odds of that person getting injured increases greatly,

that's not an explanation; that's just an unsubstantiated claim.

injury in arrest mostly follows from vicious, excessive force. In this case the target was an unarmed 72 yr old woman, REPEAT, an UNARMED 72 yr old WOMAN.

if a trained (and much younger) male police officer can't (or doesn't want to) handcuff a 72 yr old woman with moderate force, he should go find some other job.

whereas the taser defuses the situation immediately.

A taser gun is not a friggin' toy designed to be used lightly by any lazy, inept or incompetent police officer. Taser guns have killed before. involuntary muscle movement induced by a high voltage device can cause injuries just like any other form of physical force.

They both agreed it looks bad on TV no matter what.

that means they both agreed (deep down) that the police officer had acted recklessly. It wouldn't have looked bad if the target had been an armed, vicious big guy threatening to shoot the officer.

So there you have it.

[TexasHorseLady]

I don't necessarily think that the police are authorities on this (though they are definitely more likely to know what they're talking about in this regard than random people under assumed names on a discussion forum ), but frankly, being towards the elderly end of the spectrum myself and knowing what things happen to your body as you get older (things break easier, for one thing), I'd be inclined to listen to the officers if they're saying that it's easy for injury to occur once you have to lay your hands on someone to restrain them (especially in the case of an elderly woman who is clearly up for a fight mentally and emotionally, whatever her body may think of the matter, on the side of the road).

Someone else who holds your viewpoint, austinite45, quoted those police officers who did NOT agree that it was the appropriate thing to do, so do you hold those police officers who agree with you as being equally unreliable sources on this matter? If not, why not?

[love roses]

I am of the opinion that there should be a new reality show based in Austin, like wife swap, but it would be regular joe guys and gals being cops for a month. I know I'd watch just to see how much better some of these people could do.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I asked if they thought she deserved it, and one of them said "definitely" and the other nodded in agreement.

It seems that this discussion has centered around the wrong question. It's not about what she deserved, or whether she need to be taught a lesson. The only question is to whether the police officer was in danger or a member of the public was in danger. That is the only legal justification for a PO to use a weapon. It seems many of you want the police to be able to use weapons because someone deserves a good beatin'. It shouldn't work that way.

By the way, I was in Salt Lake City this week and the lead story on the news was about the police tasering a mentally ill man who was unarmed. The man died. Can you justify this? Walsh: Police search for a defense in death - Salt Lake Tribune

[austin-steve]

The only question is to whether the police officer was in danger or a member of the public was in danger. That is the only legal justification for a PO to use a weapon.

Agreed. So then the question becomes one of whether or not a recalcitrant, disobedient member of the public, who is refusing to follow repeated instructions and warnings from a peace officer imposes a threat upon that officer and/or the public.

Some of us feel that in this case, she was creating a dangerous situation that needed to be dealt with before it escalated further. You and others don't believe that the situation had yet risen to the level of danger that justifies use of a taser. On that we can agree to disagree.

Interestingly, this question is a microcosm of how and when we decide to go to war. The "let's keep talking and try to reason this out" vesus "it's time to take definitive action, now" debate. I don't think there can ever be a point at which everyone agrees within these shaded, grey areas.

Steve

[austin-steve]

Looks like Granny might get some money out of this. She wants $135K, County has offered $40K "firm". I hope she turns it down and goes to trial so we can get a decided outcome. The County, however, probably views the $40K settlement as cheaper than winning in court.

County makes offer to Tasered 72-year-old (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/30/0930taser.html - broken link)

[Trainwreck20]

Moral of the story...don't dare someone to taser you.....

[another_hot-day]

Or do...

[Trainwreck20]

Yeah, good point