Another Victory For Justice

Well, at least the fool didn't use his gun. In the US arena, this seems to be progress.

"just because a stun gun is nonlethal, does not make it any less torturous"

Sometimes I wonder when I read your posts if you've been drinking beforehand.

This guy wasn't tortured, he wasn't even shocked. He couldn't have been with only one probe finding its target.

So let's shoot to kill him, the big bad dangerous bicycle rider, that way it doesn't hurt as long.

Ok, so I see where you're going. The guy was riding his bike...in the dark...with no lights on. Dangerous, sure, mostly to himself. But what else is the cop to do, short of shooting him? "Oh, please stop, Mr. 'Criminal.'" Sounds like this guy got what he deserved, though, IMO.

I'm all for non-lethals. You've been through them in training as I have, although not a Taser. Great control tools.

Lee,

It was an aberation. I am sure U.S. cops will return to shooting grandfathers in the back in no time at all.

~tjl~

CBrown519,

TASERS, like real guns, are designed to be defensive weapons, not control weapons.

My problem here is that police today routinely use the TASER as a means of controlling suspects. How is that any different from beating them with rubber hoses? How many stories have we read where the police TASER someone multiple times until that person dies? A TASER is not your ordinary stun gun that you can find in a woman's purse. It is a serious weapon and when the government uses that kind of force against citizens, there better be a need for it and that is more than a guy riding a bike at night without lights.

~tjl~

I will ignore the outrageous, snarkey "shooting grandfathers in the back" comment and hope for a real discussion of ideas.

I would like to see more facts about the encounter than what is provided, especially if there were other factors than just the fleeing to constitute the resisting. However, since what you post is all I have to go by, deployment does not seem appropriate.

I think many police agencies felt empowered by the public when they were urged to get Tasers as a less than lethal alternative. They took this to mean it would be more widely accepted.

Most of the failure is in policy, training and accountability. In policy, many agency's put it to low on the use of force continuom. It should be just below lethal, making use rare. In training, they don't emphasize it is not intended to stop a fleeing suspect or to "get someone to play nice". This leads to an accountability problem.

Most departments, when they implement tasers properly, have a very low deployment rate (aimed but not used), and a lower use rate. But the problem has been the small number of officers who used it for the wrong reasons and deployed it because they were to lazy to handle the situation properly, starting with the least amount of force and working their way up until compliance, or using them in situations were force was not needed at all, such as a violator who refused to sign the ticket, or the suspect that used fowl language and verbally insults the officer.

Tasers are a good tool for law encorcement. Unfortunately, their implementation has been flawed in may ways.

Just my opinion...

It is typical Lucente Style debating to only include "facts" that support his case and conveniently forget other significan details. I'm wondering what the rest of this story is because I seriously doubt this guy was just riding along on his bike and a cop tasered him for no other reason than that he didn't have his lights on. Give me a freaking break.

Susan,

It was the complete story. And in case anyone wanted to verify that for themselves, I had also included the link.

Of course, if you want to be a police apologist, then you have to cling to the idea that there was more to the story. Or, perhaps, there really are bad people out there with no common sense who work as police officers just as you get in every profession. Let's insult lawyers, journalists, soldiers, politicians, but god-forbid we criticize police officers when they engage in atrocious behavior.

~tjl~

Judging by the biased news articles on the Tarika Wilson shooting that we've seen in the Lima News, articles that never tell the "complete story"... why would this article that you quoted for this posting be any different? Just because a biased reporter with an agenda of his own prints a "news article" does not mean he printed the "complete story."

But you knew that.

That must be it. It has to be the messenger's fault because a police office could not possibly have Tasered a bicyclist for riding at night without his lights on.

If you are not going to believe the media whenever the story attacks your sensibilities, then there is no use in reading the news. I advocate a critical look at media coverage, however, complete disbelief just because you don't like what you read strikes me as counterproductive. Given the large numbers of stories out there concerning Taser abuse by police agencies, there is a real problem. However, if you want to be a police apologist and bury your head in the sand, that is your right as well.

There is another end to the spectrum... "police apologist" on one end.. and you on the other... the end where the police can do NOTHING right and are nothing but "jackbooted government thugs". By my questioning the complete accuracy of the article you posted, I am doing just the opposite of 'burying my head in the sand'. I am being smart enough and responsible enough to seek out the complete story before blindly believing this news article. No, it doesn't make for very interesting blog posts on your part if you had the complete story, and it happened to show facts that suddenly make it justifiable for this incident to have happened... but at least it would be honest.

I think we're tapdancing around a greater issue here that Lucente is really trying to promote:

We citizens have a responsibility to question our law enforcement agencies, especially where injustices occur, but not only there. We must scrutinize their conduct from top to bottom. Only when law enforcement agencies realize they are being watched by those employing them to "protect and serve" will those agencies act responsibly.

The addage is true that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Much of the scrutiny we responsibly conduct comes to us through our local media outlets. Our local journalists, IMO, do a pretty good job of reporting the facts. How complete those facts are depend on how deeply our journalists dig in their efforts to report the stories.

But many of you make an incorrect assumption about Lucente: He's not a journalist of the reporter-type. He's a columnist, an opinion-writer. As such, he's beholden to his opinion of the facts written, and as anyone would do embattled in a debate - public or private - he's going to present facts that support his case, whether or not other facts available could be presented to refute his position.

And imagine: He even gets paid to do that! Wow!

Lucente and I agree on a great number of things, just not on everything. On some of the issues we disagree, we do so vehemently - we've even been seen yelling at each other (those times, there's usually alcohol involved). And there are times where even though we're on the same side of an issue, one of us can be found to be more extremely on that side than the other...usually it's Lucente.

But I think Lucente provides a valuable service for us, and we're seeing it in action here. He's provoking mostly meaningful dialog. There have been some rather childish comments, but that's to be expected in an open and unregulated forum.

I for one rather enjoy, and never tire, of his use of the term "jackbooted, government thugs." In many of the situations cited by Lucente, as they say, "if the shoe fits..." Or maybe you like "if it quacks like a duck..."

Keep it up, Tom.

CBrown, whew, for a minute there, I thought you said you were "lapdancing"... either Tom needs to change the colors on this blog or I need my eyes tested.

As for your comment, you said, "We citizens have a responsibility to question our law enforcement agencies, especially where injustices occur, but not only there. We must scrutinize their conduct from top to bottom. Only when law enforcement agencies realize they are being watched by those employing them to "protect and serve" will those agencies act responsibly. " I don't disagree with that at all. However, the key is, being able to scrutinize and keep tabs on them in a responsible manner without becoming anti-law enforcement. This is the biggest problem we're seeing right now with the Wilson shooting. These people live in an environment where they are taught from birth to never trust the police, and worse yet, to assume the police are always corrupt, always being unfair,always racist, always the cause of their problems, always at fault...period. While I am quite aware that there are bad cops out there, and that we have to keep them in check, so to speak, I also believe there is a very fine line between responsible scrutiny and blatant anti-law enforcement prejudice. Tom teters on the edge there and has already made himself sound like he is right there along with the family, friends, Derry Glenn, Brenda Johnson, et al, screaming for "justice" without giving the law enforcement a half a chance to show that justice WILL be done. That isn't responsible scrutiny, that's making a biased assumption from the very beginning, with no knowledge of actual facts, that the cops HAD to have been wrong, and that they will try to cover their butts, without giving them a chance to prove that justice will be served. If he isn't "anti-cop", he certainly makes himself sound that way by the words he chooses. This is what happens when a writer's favorite term for police is "jackbooted government thug". I'd say, if he is offended at being thought of as a cop-hater, then he should re-evaluate his choice of words, not only in his opinion columns, but on his blog as well. His readers have nothing else to judge his character by than what he writes, so if they have a wrong idea about him...whose fault is that? (by the way, I agree with him on more issues than not.)

I'm curious, Tom. Given the facts of this case, what do you think the police officer should have done?

Lucente: "TASERS, like real guns, are designed to be defensive weapons, not control weapons.

My problem here is that police today routinely use the TASER as a means of controlling suspects. How is that any different from beating them with rubber hoses?"

Tom, rubber hoses weren't being used routinely to control anyone. They were being used as retailiatory torture tools by cops executing street/jailhouse justice. No doubt some of that still goes on, albeit without the rubber hoses.

But now, I'm really disappointed; this point of your argument was way too easy to research.

"TASER device is an electronic CONTROL device that is a safer use-of-force option for law enforcement, private security, military and personal defense."

This is found right on the manufacturer's web site http://www.taser.com/research/Pages/FAQGeneral.aspx. And it is the very first sentence of the answer to the first question on the FAQ page. Capitalization of the sixth word is mine.

Notice the manufacturer says this tool is a SAFER alternative. And they clearly point out that with all weapons, this one does pose safety risks. Does that mean they shouldn't be used?

And this from the third answer: "TASER systems use proprietary technology to immediately incapacitate dangerous, combative or high-risk individuals who pose a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves."

It would be a stretch to be sure, that the bicyclist was enough of a risk to himself or others that necessitated employing a TASER. (btw, the acronym stands for "Thomas A. Swift's Electronic Rifle" .

It was probably being employed in it's designed capacity as a control weapon used to subdue a fleeing suspect.

Susan, I agree the Wilson shooting is enflaming an anti-law enforcement sentiment throughout the community. I just don't see anything Tom has written, nor heard him say anything that would lead me to believe he's one of them.

Yes, he's on the edge of a lot of issues. We both know that's true. Golly, anybody who knows Tom knows that's true. But I find it hard to identify more than a couple blog posters here who really know him like we do. It's easy to see how he allows those comments to fall off him, as they should, like water from a duck's back.

Bill,

Clearly he should have been shot. He was a threat to others.

Seriously, I think the subsequent actions of the officer go a long way in demonstrating that the use of the Taser was unnecessary.

The officer ineffectively used his Taser in that only one prong hit the guy and he was not shocked. Still, the officer was able to make an arrest without anyone getting hurt. In all honesty, Bill, does that not demonstrate that the use of the Taser was unnecessary?

The Taser is a great weapon. I love it. Still, it is clearly being used incorrectly and gratuitously throughout the nation, as many media reports demonstrate.

~tjl~