My original post, in which I distinguish between normal and "drive stun" Taser modes.
Originally posted by: Flatscan
It should be no more strenuous than standard pain compliance. I wonder how well breaking the student's fingers - accidentally, but fairly easy to do with inadequate training - would have gone over.
A more appropriate application of pain compliance would have been a wrist lock, which is less likely to cause accidental broken bones. With the student going limp, an arm lock could lead to serious injury if his body weight were suddenly applied against the lock.
Originally posted by: LS20
Originally posted by: Flatscan
How many UCPD officers responded? I believe I saw 3 or 4 in the video, which is insufficient to simultaneously remove the student and perform crowd control.
My reasoning and conclusions, mostly from listening to the video:
- If "drive stun" was used, it is unlikely that the student was incapacitated and unable to stand.
- The student demonstrates that he is capable of speaking when he yells a couple or few times (not counting the screaming as the Taser is applied). At no point did I hear "I have a medical condition" (as one of the articles claimed - please post an approximate time if you heard it), "I can't get up", "my legs don't work", etc.
- Since it is likely that the student was capable of standing and did not specifically protest that he was unable, I believe that his not standing was deliberate non-compliance as described in the police report.
1. there would be no riotous crowd if he was simply dragged from the library
2. it matters not whether he was incapacitated by the tazer or not, because...
1. Just in general, it seems like a good idea to keep at least one officer free to cover even a peaceful crowd. From the video, I thought that 2 officers were having difficulties moving the student, which is likely why they attempted to gain compliance after the initial application of the Taser.
2. Whether he was incapacitated is related to whether additional Taser applications were justified, given the context. It's not completely irrelevant. If he was not incapacitated, repeated applications of the Taser could plausibly force him into compliance.
I avoided addressing your other points, as I want to formulate my position. Please specify if you would like me to address them in a later post.
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
Originally posted by: Flatscan
The student demonstrates that he is capable of speaking when he yells a couple or few times (not counting the screaming as the Taser is applied). At no point did I hear "I have a medical condition" (as one of the articles claimed - please post an approximate time if you heard it), "I can't get up", "my legs don't work", etc.
0:41.
he says he has a ****ing medical condition.
Thank you, I missed it - I went back and reviewed that segment.
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
3. Medical condition? Either the guy should've stated his medical condition if it would help not get him tazed again. That should've given a warning to the officers to avoid tazing him. Remember the article where a kid was killed by being tazed? Difference in age could mean nothing. Each body reacts differently to shocks.
4. Yes, being tazed could leave you immobilized. After the first one, since he was capable of talking, ok fine. 2nd thru 5th was not. Hence why people stood up for the guy.
I posted earlier that "drive stun" mode has reduced effectiveness and reduced danger of sudden death. This is not to say that it can't be a factor in a death, but it is less likely to be the proximate cause.
Within the last few years, an unruly male passenger died after being subdued by other passengers. In order to restrain him, one or more passengers had sat on him once he was under control. He had not been asphyxiated, he had had a heart attack as a result of the stress leading up to the disruption, from the disruption itself, and from being restrained. He also had the existing medical condition of being overweight.