This is bullsh*t

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12/child.tasered.

ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12/child.tasered.ap/index.html)

[Mtnjim]

Ya', they should have used a 12

gage, since he was obviously a terrorist!! :think:

[koolking1]

Hey Citizen!!! drop that

weapon or we'll shoot!!! Can you blame 'em - no tanks backing them up this time.

[Pancho1188]

Why is that article

bullsh*t?

[koolking1]

it's not the article

that's being disparaged it's the fact that two police officers felt a need to use a stun gun on a 6 year old. Put

yourself in the shoes of those policemen and tell us if you would have accomplished things the same way??

[belgareth]

On the face of it, it's hard

to imagine doing that to a kid. You'd think that 4 adults could have cornered or outsmarted him to keep him from

hurting himself. Hurting himself is the real issue here. I've thought about it several times today and just don't

know. Can you imagine a situation in a confined space where it was the only option to keep him from further harming

himself?

I wasn't there and don't understand the situation. My inclination is to think using a taser on a kid

was pretty extreme and uncalled for. But I don't know.

[DrSmellThis]

It's partly lack of training.

Anyone working with a lot of kids like in a school needs training on crisis management. For that matter cops should

be trained in dealing with kids too. I've worked with the most disturbed and suicidal kids there are for many years

and I can guarantee you there was no need to do that. There is no way a six year old should be able to harm

himself that bad with glass while six adults are standing around, or even one adult. Not only did he harm himself,

he got shot with a stun gun or whatever. As a child advocate I found that a bit disgusting.

But yeah, they

should have called in a swat team. :rolleyes:

[HK45Mark23]

:think: 50,000

volts is a lot for a 6 year old kid. Good thing it was not one of those 250,000 volt machines. The kid would have

died for sure. The kid was hostile and armed I can’t say if their actions were excessive or not but I think they

are lucky that 50,000 volts did not kill the kid. He might be a large 6 years old and have a psychological problem

that increases his adrenalin. Under the condition that the kid was producing high levels of adrenalin he could be

dangerous and hard to handle. We have a state mental institution in my city. It is for the criminally mental ill.

It is a maximum security mental health facility. Many children are there and they are dangerous.



HK45Mark23:thumbsup:

[DrSmellThis]

I also worked on a kids unit

in a mental hospital for three years, and in another residential facility. You're trained in crisis diffusion,

takedowns, holds, safety, seclusion and restraint pretty heavily and regularly. This obviously highlights the need

for training of people working with large numbers of kids. Most incidents dont need to get that point at all. Six

years old is very young in mental illness and dangerousness terms. They really don't become impossible to control

that young in terms of a single crisis with a lot of adults around. I mean he had a piece of broken glass in his

tiny hand for chrissakes, not an AK47.

50,000 volts does sound like a lot. Nine volts sounds like a lot.

[culturalblonde]

Yeah, someone has a lot of

explaining to do.

The police

report:
http://www.miami.com/multimedia/miami/news/archive/taserreport.pdf

From the Miami

Herald:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10161183.htm?1c

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/

[HK45Mark23]

Yes DST,



I agree and I feel I could have

restrained this kid. My cousin and her husband work in children’s psychiatric wards and it is true that they know

how to handle such situations. I feel the school principal should have been able to have handled this child. She if

any one should have had the training. This also brings up my “opinion” about how parents are not being allowed to

punish their children. Then the parents are punished if the child commits a crime. This kid may just need a good

spanking or series of them over a period of time. Sorry if this offends any one. I was spanked and am a better

person for it. I probably needed more but my parents loved me and truly meant it when they said “This is going to

hurt me more than it will you.” I love them for disciplining me.

50,000

volts is a lot for a kid and the higher the # the stronger. The difference between volts, amps and watts is a theory

I can discuss. Standard Stun Gun Conventional stun guns and tasers have a

fairly simple design. They are about the size of a flashlight, and they work on ordinary 9-volt batteries.

The batteries supply electricity to a circuit consisting of various electrical components. The circuitry

includes multiple

transformers (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/inside-transformer.htm), components that boost the

voltage in the circuit, typically to between 20,000 and 150,000 volts, or as many as 625,000 volts and reduce the

amperage. It also includes an oscillator, a component that fluctuates current to produce a specific pulse

pattern of electricity. This current charges a

capacitor (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/capacitor.htm). The capacitor builds up a charge,

and releases it to the electrodes, the "business end" of the circuit. The electrodes are simply two plates of

conducting metal positioned in the circuit with a gap between them. Since the electrodes are positioned along the

circuit, they have a high voltage difference between them. If you fill this gap with a conductor (say, the

attacker's body), the electrical pulses will try to move from one electrode the other, dumping electricity into the

attacker's nervous system. Cattle Prods Cattle prods are similar to stun guns in design -- they apply an electrical

current across two electrodes -- but they serve a completely different function. A stun gun uses an electrical

charge to incapacitate someone, while a cattle prod applies a charge to get a person or animal moving. A cattle prod

only causes pain; it does not significantly affect the muscles and nervous system of the body. These two devices

differ mainly in voltage. The voltage in a stun gun is high enough to dump electricity into the entire

body. The lower voltage in a cattle prod only shocks someone at the point of contact.




HK45Mark23

[HK45Mark23]

I did a search on Google and

found this.
How Stun Guns Work
A stun gun is an

electrical self-defense device that uses high voltage to stop an attacker. Touching a person with the prongs on the

stun gun quickly immobilizes the attacker. However, because the amperage is very low, no serious or permanent injury

is inflicted.
Stun guns are designed to key into the nervous system. They dump their energy into the muscles at a

different frequency than the pulse waves emanating from the brain. The pulse waves coming from the brain and those

from the stun gun collide at the nerve synapse' which is a type of complex processing switch adjacent to each

muscle group. The resulting energy collision makes it difficult for an attacker to move and function. This causes

disorientation and loss of balance and leaves the attacker in a passive and confused condition for several minutes.

Still, stun guns have no significant effect on the heart and other organs.
As a general rule, a one-half second

contact from a stun gun will repel and startle the attacker, giving some pain and muscle contraction. One to two

seconds will cause muscle spasms and a dazed mental state. Over three seconds will cause loss of balance and muscle

control, mental confusion and disorientation.
However, don't think about how many seconds you should hold the stun

gun to your attacker. Think about it this way. Throw out what the books say and the online information you have read

about stun guns. You should hold your stun gun to the assailant until they drop and you can get away and call the

police, whether that may be one second or six seconds.
What is the difference between the 80,000 volt model and the

625,000 you might ask? Look at it this way, both stun guns will render your assailant helpless, but you might have

to hold the 80kv Talon mini a second or two longer than the 625kv Stunmaster. Consider this. A stun gun is effective

on most all parts of the body. But give yourself the best chance to get the best of your attacker. Hold the stun gun

on a body part that has a lot of surface area, such as the chest, abdomen, groin, kidneys, back, etc. An area such

as the arm or leg will work fine, but these body parts do not allow you the same amount of surface area that you

will need to contact for a few seconds.
What does a stun gun feel like? If you have ever hit your funny bone,

multiply that by ten thousand and extend it throughout your entire body. The inablility to function and feeling of

helplessness combined with the sensation of millions of tiny needles going through your body provides certain

inherent physical, mental and emotional trauma.
The electrical shock that emits from the stunning device will not

pass from the person being stunned to the person doing the stunning. The effect is localized only in the affected

area and does not pass through the body. Even if you or the attacker are wet or standing in water, you will not be

shocked.

HK45Mark23

[DAdams91982]

50,000 Volts will not

kill... it isnt the volts that kills... it is the current... I dont believe it puts out enough current to kill...

even a 6 year old

adams

[belgareth]

No, in a vast majority of cases

it will not kill. The amperage is miniscule and unless there is some other underlying issue it shouldn't be fatal.

You can get as many volts through you from a bad static shock although the duration is much shorter and the

frequency is not intended to disrupt nerve activity like a stun gun does. There have been fatalities associated with

stun guns but the victim had other problems also.

I think the Doc's point is that the adults present should

have been able to handle it without the stun gun. That's where all the uncertainty comes in. It seems like there

were a lot of failures leading up to the police taking action. It isn't a discipline issue, when a child gets to

the point of self inflicting harm, this is more than a temper tantrum. I am not at all oppossed to spanking a child

when appropriate but this case sounds like something different altogether.

[HK45Mark23]

Yeah, you are right Adams, and I totally agree Belgareth. It is possibly a result of

improper parenting or abuse.

[DAdams91982]

I understand the topic of

the thread was different, and I agree with you on them points... just I threw in a little bit of knowledge I had

:)

Adams

[DCW]

I don't see anyone griping about

police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics now?


DCW

[DAdams91982]

I don't see

anyone griping about police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics now?




DCW
Completely different topic... but you put yourself in harms way why dont you... be a solution,

instead of bitching about the problem???

Adams

[belgareth]

Completely

different topic... but you put yourself in harms way why dont you... be a solution, instead of bitching about the

problem???

Adams
Exactly! When you enter an arena you have to accept the risks associated with it.

[koolking1]

about informing me in some way????

at any rate, here's this too:



Police

Tasered truant girl, 12

Miami Herald | Nov 13 2004


A Miami-Dade police officer used a Taser to

stop an unarmed, 12-year-old girl who was running away from him after she was caught skipping school, police

acknowledged Friday night.

The incident happened Nov. 5, just over two weeks after other Miami-Dade officers

used a stun gun to restrain a first-grader. In that case, police said the 6-year-old boy was holding a shard of

glass and threatening to cut himself. Police Director Bobby Parker defended the decision to shock the boy because he

could have seriously hurt himself.

But Parker said Friday that he could not defend the decision to shock the

fleeing 12-year-old, who was apparently drunk.

''Under the circumstances, we thought that he should not

have used the Taser,'' Parker said referring to the officer. ``It's likely that discipline will be

forthcoming.''

According to the incident report:

Officer William Nelson responded to an anonymous

complaint that some kids were swimming in a West Kendall pool, drinking alcohol and smoking cigars about 11

a.m.

Nelson said he noticed the girl was intoxicated and told her to get dressed so he could take her back to

school.

''While walking [the girl] to the police car, [she] took off running through the parking lot,''

Nelson wrote in his report.

Nelson, 38, a 15-year veteran, said he chased her and yelled several times for

her to stop. Nelson said he pulled out the Taser and fired when the girl began to run into traffic.

The

electric probes hit the girl in the neck and lower back, immobilizing her with 50,000 volts.

Nelson said he

fired ''for my safety along with [the girl's] safety.'' He could not be reached for comment.

Paramedics

treated the girl, who went home with her mother.

Parker said department policy permits officers to use the

Taser to apprehend someone, but he said he expected his officers to use better judgment -- especially when police

had no plans to arrest someone playing hooky.

''If you use it to apprehend an adult, it would be an arrest

kind of situation,'' said Parker, adding that the timing of the latest incident couldn't be any worse.

His

department is already under fire for using a Taser to subdue the 6-year-old last month. That zapping has made

national headlines and prompted calls from child advocates that Miami-Dade review its Taser use.

Parker said

Friday night that his department will review its Taser policy. ''That doesn't mean that we're going to change

it,'' he said.

County Commissioner Joe Martinez, a former Miami-Dade officer, said the policy needs to be

tightened.

''When you have a 6-year-old who is on medication and very disturbed, maybe some of that crisis

intervention training would be very handy,'' he said, referring to a program that teaches officers how to deal

with the mentally ill. ``Now, when I learn that a 12-year-old girl was running away, truant, and was also Tasered, I

think it's time we instruct the county manager to look at that policy.''

Asked if his officers had shocked

any other kids, Parker said: ``I asked the same question, are there more of these out there that I'm not aware of?

To my knowledge this is the only one.''

[DCW]

Completely

different topic... but you put yourself in harms way why dont you... be a solution, instead of bitching about the

problem???

Adams


Different topic??

I thought we were talking about excessive

force and proper training?
And who's bicthing...not here.


DCW

[koolking1]

"I don't see anyone

griping about police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics

now?


DCW"

I don't see how this could possibly be "off-topic". Police brutality includes not only

the use of stun guns, real guns, night-sticks, broomstick handles, fists, overly tightened handcuffs, etc etc.. I

don't really care too much when it comes to common everyday criminals but when we're talking kids and legitimate

political protestors I care a whole bunch.

[DCW]

"I don't see anyone

griping about police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics

now?


DCW"

I don't see how this could possibly be "off-topic". Police brutality includes not only

the use of stun guns, real guns, night-sticks, broomstick handles, fists, overly tightened handcuffs, etc etc.. I

don't really care too much when it comes to common everyday criminals but when we're talking kids and legitimate

political protestors I care a whole bunch.


Thank you, Thank you, someone finally got

it.


DCW

[DrSmellThis]

Police also need training in

dealing with kids.

Usually they're coming from a place of not accepting risk of physical harm or engaging in

physical intervention except when the result of incapacitation of a "subject" will be virtually guaranteed.



If they're going to "get physical", somebody is getting incapacitated. Further, if they're going to shoot, it

will be to kill.

There used to be a lot more emphasis on "halfway" measures like judo holds and the like. For

that matter, the days of "aiming for a leg "are long gone -- a "quaint" relic of the past (like the Geneva

Convention, according to Ashcroft's replacement ;)).

But with small kids, the issue is entirely different, in

that the risk of critical bodily harm to an officer is much lower, unless the kid has a gun or knife; and the

risk to the subject is much higher. A policy of least harmful intervention should be in place.

There are

various holds and restraint/seclusion proceedures that are time tested and court-tested -- that will stand scrutiny;

and have proved safe.

There is no excuse for police officers to not have this training. It also comes in handy

with other less dangerous "subjects". Police cannot have a situation were they are completely insulated from mixing

it up with anyone in such cases. That risk also comes with the territory.

Aside from that, 99 times out of 100,

a skilled crisis worker can diffuse a situation without anything "physical" happening.

In this case, chances

are someone could have just said "Billy, I'm going to help you stay safe with that glass", grabbed the child's

wrist, and freed the glass. At most the person would have gotten punched by a six year old. Big f-ing deal! There

are lots of other, more involved techniques that could have been tried, of course, and would have worked much

better, given the presence of multiple adults.

Some thick gloves over rubber would have helped, or even some

towels over rubber. Glass is a pretty common dangerous object to encounter, since it is the most readily available

dangerous thing. The factor here is that people are afraid of getting AIDS or Hepatitis through contact with bodily

fluids.

But there are priorities to consider, once you minimize risks to the extent possible.

[Pancho1188]

I still don't get why

everyone's making such a fuss. The 6-year old cut himself three times. The cop stopped himself from hurting

himself anymore, and the kid is not permanently harmed. In the other case, had a drunken 12-year old run out into

traffic and gotten killed while being chased by the police, you can be sure that officer would've been in three

times the trouble he's in now. After 15 years on the force, he saved himself a world of trouble.

When you're

in the heat of the moment with a worked-up kid, you have the option of taking him down with your hands or using the

taser. Kids are small and agile, and with his level of arousal he could've wiggled his way enough to hurt himself

further. He could've cut one of the people there. The taser was a sure thing.


I knew a guy who specialized

in pressure points and took down this psych patient who was huge and because of his illness could summon almost

inhuman strength. In fact, the two or three guys supposed to be handling him told the guy to let the patient go

because they could handle it, and when he did the patient flipped out again and the guy had to repeat his

technique.

As nice as it would be to teach every police officer those or similar techniques, the taser was just

as effective in those situations.

There is a major difference between killing someone and temporarily

incapacitating them, by the way...in these situations, I believe the police made the correct moves to protect

everyone involved. You can't expect the police, with the low budget it probably has in the first place, to be

trained in every form of disabling people known to man. As my friend once said, "I don't like how martial arts

shows you 1,500 ways to do things. When you're actually in a fight-or-flight situation, you forget it all.

You're not going to do a back flip into a flying spin kick. In those situations, you should master one move and be

able to use it effectively. After all, fights aren't like in the movies. Fights last 2 seconds. You have time

for one move to take the other guy down. Know what your move is and execute it perfectly." I think that's what

the police did.



Nobody's hurt, so why is everyone complaining?

[DAdams91982]

Great post Pancho.



DCW... How can you say this is in the same ball field???

A suspect gets shot (And you are NEVER in these

types of situations, so you cant judge him)... the police officer could have had reason to believe his life was in

danger... YOU DONT KNOW... so therefore you cannot judge this... he wears a uniform that draws in danger, and if it

wasnt him to pull the trigger, who knows... he could be the one dead... we give police a certain amount of power for

a reason... so protect and serve the people who dont want to.

This situation was defused, no one was hurt beyond

what was already done, were are these even close together???

Adams

[SweetBrenda]

I still

don't get why everyone's making such a fuss. The 6-year old cut himself three times. The cop stopped himself from

hurting himself anymore, and the kid is not permanently harmed. In the other case, had a drunken 12-year old run out

into traffic and gotten killed while being chased by the police, you can be sure that officer would've been in

three times the trouble he's in now. After 15 years on the force, he saved himself a world of trouble.

When

you're in the heat of the moment with a worked-up kid, you have the option of taking him down with your hands or

using the taser. Kids are small and agile, and with his level of arousal he could've wiggled his way enough to hurt

himself further. He could've cut one of the people there. The taser was a sure thing.


I knew a guy who

specialized in pressure points and took down this psych patient who was huge and because of his illness could summon

almost inhuman strength. In fact, the two or three guys supposed to be handling him told the guy to let the patient

go because they could handle it, and when he did the patient flipped out again and the guy had to repeat his

technique.

As nice as it would be to teach every police officer those or similar techniques, the taser was just

as effective in those situations.

There is a major difference between killing someone and temporarily

incapacitating them, by the way...in these situations, I believe the police made the correct moves to protect

everyone involved. You can't expect the police, with the low budget it probably has in the first place, to be

trained in every form of disabling people known to man. As my friend once said, "I don't like how martial arts

shows you 1,500 ways to do things. When you're actually in a fight-or-flight situation, you forget it all. You're

not going to do a back flip into a flying spin kick. In those situations, you should master one move and be able to

use it effectively. After all, fights aren't like in the movies. Fights last 2 seconds. You have time for one move

to take the other guy down. Know what your move is and execute it perfectly." I think that's what the police did.





Nobody's hurt, so why is everyone complaining?:goodpost: Well said Pancho.

[bjf]

Yea, I would have just shot the

little f*ckers! :lol:

[DCW]

Great post

Pancho.

DCW... How can you say this is in the same ball field???

A suspect gets shot (And you are

NEVER in these types of situations, so you cant judge him)... the police officer could have had reason to believe

his life was in danger... YOU DONT KNOW... so therefore you cannot judge this... he wears a uniform that draws in

danger, and if it wasnt him to pull the trigger, who knows... he could be the one dead... we give police a certain

amount of power for a reason... so protect and serve the people who dont want to.

This situation was

defused, no one was hurt beyond what was already done, were are these even close together???



Adams


Did you read my post? I know the word "suspesct" carry a certain ahh....shall we say

image to some of you in here.

To be a "suspect" doesn't necessarly mean your guilty of any crime (imagine

that).

The so called "suspect" was a 17 year old kid that was "running away" I say it again "running awaaaay"

from the brave policeman
when he was shot in the back, and the reason he was running away? Well it turned out

that this "suspect" was working illegally
cleaning offices and was walking home and just happen to be at the

wrong place at the wrong time.

I'm sure he probably he deserved it taking away minimum wage cleaning jobs

away from red blooded American, justice was served.

DCW

[DrSmellThis]

It's hard for me to believe

people are defending using a stun gun on a six year old. Amazing.

[bjf]

It could definitely imprint some sort

of psychological trauma that manifests itself for the rest of his life.

[DrSmellThis]

It's called child abuse.

[DAdams91982]

No I am not defending using

a stun gun on a six year old... there were different ways to handle that no doubt... But yes the problem was

diffused.... and no one got hurt.

But people are sitting here putting a dark image over all the people who

protect and serve, with a very obtuse generalization.

Someone who does put their life on the line everyday is

criticizing someone who does. Which you have no room to do so when you do know do so yourself.

Being were I

am I no longer listen to media one bit... no matter how many sources it comes from (Considering they stake each

other out)... I only give my opinion on stuff I witness first hand, or have had expierience in. Which some people

should think about, before they go speaking out against something they have no CLUE about.

Adams

[DrSmellThis]

I happen to be a child

psychologist and I've got news for you: Emotional and physical trauma is getting hurt, especially when you're six.

The damage from either emotional or physical abuse can take a lifetime to heal.

Child care and education are

neither war nor beat policing. Just because somebody has a gun doesn't excuse him or her from knowing the

difference. To imagine that a six year old with a piece of glass, in a roomful of professional adults, is a grave

mortal threat would almost be paranoid and antisocial thinking. I could say that people who lack knowledge, training

and experience regarding taking care of disturbed kids have no room to talk about how to do so in a crisis.



People who protect and serve needn't feel like victims when asked to take responsibility for their irresponsible

actions, and find safer approaches to working with the community that hired them to protect and serve.

[camusflage]

Did you see about the 76 year

old woman tasered for not leaving a nursing home?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/granny_spark_out/

What about the guy who was stealing

electricity who was killed by a taser? (irony surrenders)

http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/feed/article.aspx?ArticleID=50

[bjf]

I think DAdams problem is that people

who become cops or soldier are put in situations where the right and wrong path isn't always immediately known, and

that they deserve a greater margin for error because mistakes will happen. They shouldn't be punished for putting

themselves in vunerable situations - afterall human error is inevitable, and there are plenty of grey

areas.

I agree there has to be accountability though, whether it be doctors, cops, soldiers etc. But they

also deserve some sort of allowance to f*ck up since they are putting themselves in situations where mistakes will

be made, and it is hard to ask for a cop or soldier to be on the other side of the mistake (ie get

shot).

That does not mean they should allowed to be negligent, however.

[DrSmellThis]

Agreed, in general.

Of

course a soldier needs a greater margin of error in a war -- a cop on a traffic stop too.

The following

was a somewhat different kind of incident, for example, though still a serious matter:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15

/marine.probe/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/index.html)

The problem is that this is not the issue here; just as it's not an issue of

random error in a crisis.

If you walk into, say, a day care to attend to an out of control 6 year old, your

mind set and menu of interventions has to be different from the outset. It's not like you're busting a crack

house.

And of course, there were multiple problems in the situation, and plenty of blame to go around.

The

biggest problem is education and law enforcement training rather than the individual officer, who nonetheless also

played a part. This is systemic with law enforcement. Funding loss is always an issue too. At least in Oregon, there

is big problem with lack of support for training. More thorough training also gives you a chance to spot those who

may be psychologically inappropriate for police duty.

The issue is also not one of failing to understand and

forgive when someone -- or a system -- makes a mistake and owns up, seeking to repair the problem.

On

the other hand, there's no excuse for someone involved failing to see there's a problem. People thinking

out loud or shooting the breeze in a forum is different, and not a big deal. But I also hope the public is not

growing accustomed and complacent regarding misuses of force.

[koolking1]

I always thought that two

wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age bracket as Adams,

Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm amazed, really

amazed.

[DCW]

I always thought

that two wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age bracket as

Adams, Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm amazed,

really amazed.

I'm not sure what your point is.

DCW

[DCW]

I'm not sure what your

point is.

DCW

Ok I get now :wave:

Actually I 'm pretty sure I'm older and I often

lie about my age especially on the web :lol:

DCW

[DrSmellThis]

I always

thought that two wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age

bracket as Adams, Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm

amazed, really amazed. Most that age try on and take off beliefs like shopping for shoes; but eventually

pick ones that fit.

[Mtnjim]

Most that age

try on and take off beliefs like shopping for shoes; but eventually pick ones that fit.


We all

did it, if I remember right--then again I am old and senile!

[DAdams91982]

I always

thought that two wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age

bracket as Adams, Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm

amazed, really amazed.
Great words from someone who doesnt have to deal with this shit face to face.



BJF... that is essentially what I am trying to say... not so much that you should give them a margin of error...

but it might be a differnet story if you were to be in the situation they were in.

But like I said... Everyone

here has their own opinion, and I am not trying to change that.. but to put yourself in other people shoes, and then

make an informed decision... NOT FROM THE DAMN MEDIA!!!

Adams

[Mtnjim]

Great words from

someone who doesnt have to deal with this shit face to face.

Adams

While I appreciate what

you are doing, please be aware that you are not the first, nor will you be the last to "deal with this sh!t face to

face". :nono:

I was dealing with it before you were (probably) born, ever heard of a place called Viet Nam??

:frustrate

At least you get to be a "hero", :box: not "a baby raper and mother killer"! :POKE:

[koolking1]

Adams, you really don't

understand the caliber of many of the posters here. I have 1003 days, yes 1000 and 3 days of IndoChina service.

And, I still feel no need for anyone in this country to use a stun gun on a child, or a law-abiding adult for that

matter (protestors come to mind).

[DrSmellThis]

Again, I hope I appreciate the

work DAdams and his colleagues are doing. I don't know much about fighting wars.

In my 15 years of child MH

work, though, I've often been face to face with more out of control, emotionally and behaviorally disturbed kids in

a week than most humans will be in a lifetime. In addition, I just came off of 3-4 years general mental health

crisis work, where I was helping suicidal folks and others in crises multiple times every day. We also did crisis

work for 9/11 (as it was happening on 9/11 and after), anthrax incidents, and the space shuttle disaster. So if I

was in that particular situation with the boy and his glass I'm pretty sure I'd be calmer, sharper and exercise

better judgement than I would in most normal, day-to-day situations; like, say, waiting in line at the DEQ. ;) It

would be just another interesting day at work in many respects, and that child almost surely would not have hurt

himself further after the intervention started.

I mostly worry about folks being in those situations without

having the necessary training, just like I'd worry about my own ability to bust a crack house. Cops would not

typically have the necessary training, sadly.

Communities need mental health professionals to work closely with

law enforcement for sure, since it's so freaking common to encounter disturbed individuals. It wouldn't hurt the

military either to have training in mental health crisis. The best way to handle an emergency is to avoid it in the

first place, no matter how well armed you are.

[Elk Dreamer]

Totally Agree with you DST.

I too have been there. No need for this extreme force.
Officers untrained!

Elk

[DAdams91982]

While I

appreciate what you are doing, please be aware that you are not the first, nor will you be the last to "deal with

this sh!t face to face". :nono:

I was dealing with it before you were (probably) born, ever heard of a place

called Viet Nam?? :frustrate

At least you get to be a "hero", :box: not "a baby raper and mother killer"!

:POKE:
And you know... I never said I was the first or last... The people of Vietnam have my complete

respect... You say people call me hero... but I get alot of the same flak that the people of Vietnam get. Which is

wrong... We are troops that follow orders... Though I do complete agree with what is happening.

Adams

[DAdams91982]

Again, I

hope I appreciate the work DAdams and his colleagues are doing. I don't know much about fighting wars.

In my 15

years of child MH work, though, I've often been face to face with more out of control, emotionally and behaviorally

disturbed kids in a week than most humans will be in a lifetime. In addition, I just came off of 3-4 years general

mental health crisis work, where I was helping suicidal folks and others in crises multiple times every day. We also

did crisis work for 9/11 (as it was happening on 9/11 and after), anthrax incidents, and the space shuttle disaster.

So if I was in that particular situation with the boy and his glass I'm pretty sure I'd be calmer, sharper and

exercise better judgement than I would in most normal, day-to-day situations; like, say, waiting in line at the DEQ.

;) It would be just another interesting day at work in many respects, and that child almost surely would not have

hurt himself further after the intervention started.

I mostly worry about folks being in those situations

without having the necessary training, just like I'd worry about my own ability to bust a crack house. Cops would

not typically have the necessary training, sadly.

Communities need mental health professionals to work closely

with law enforcement for sure, since it's so freaking common to encounter disturbed individuals. It wouldn't hurt

the military either to have training in mental health crisis. The best way to handle an emergency is to avoid it in

the first place, no matter how well armed you are.
And you know... that opinion is completely logical...

and more training is ALWAYS a plus... we in the military do get training... not for specifically situations like

this... but all around mental health... which has to be repeated yearly...

... And remember... Human basic

instincts are Reproduction, and Survival.

Adams

[DAdams91982]

Adams, you

really don't understand the caliber of many of the posters here. I have 1003 days, yes 1000 and 3 days of IndoChina

service. And, I still feel no need for anyone in this country to use a stun gun on a child, or a law-abiding adult

for that matter (protestors come to mind).
Then if your so High Caliber... why would you do something

petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???

Kinda shots holes in any opinons you

throw out there.

Adams

[metroman]

I think it was purely a matter

of luck that no one did get hurt, I agree; stun guns or tasers have no place being used on 6 year olds. Its

obviously crazy & I think it just reflects a growing fascist mentality amongst some members in the law enforcement

community.

[Pancho1188]

Pop quiz: A person holds a

piece of glass to a 6-year old boy. After trying to talk him out of it to no avail, do you use the stun gun on that

person to save the child?

Anyone would say yes to that. In fact, you'd probably say do whatever's necessary,

even if it means killing him, because he's threatening a child's life. Wouldn't you?





















...well, the person just so happened to be himself in that situation. Ohhhh, now

it's different...what if it was one child with a piece of glass to another child's throat? Would you use the stun

gun then or would you just talk to the kid? What if it was a gun? Oh, now that's different...the

line's getting fuzzy now, isn't it...and you have all the time in the world to ponder morality without someone's

life on the line...I'm sure it's not so different when you're in the situation and you have to make a move or

somebody dies. I'm glad we can all sit and criticize the poor guy who saved the child's life for using a

method that didn't do so much as shake the boy up for 5 minutes...


Child abuse...whatever made that kid do

that was child abuse...what was done was in the child's best interest to keep him from hurting himself

further (yeah, let's not forget he already hurt himself three times). Psychological trauma...whatever caused

him to cut himself is the real psychological trauma. The cop prevented the child from killing himself so that he

could get the help he needed to erase that possible trauma and abuse (or just mental instability). Sure, there were

other ways to go about it, but obviously they didn't work, did they? Geez, everyone acts like the guy saw the kid

with a piece of glass and stunned him. Probably what actually happened was this went on for a while...the kid lost

it, the principle alerted others, the police finally arrived, they tried to talk him out of it, it didn't work, the

kid started cutting his own leg after cutting his eye and another part of his body...what do you do? Do you continue

to try and talk him out of it when he's in the middle of killing himself? Do you try to take him out and

accidentally slice the boy up or beat him to a pulp? Do you simply shock him and catch him as he temporarily loses

his ability to stand like his feet fell asleep for a few minutes and get him to the hospital to treat the

real threat---his self-inflicted wounds?


I'm very offended that someone would even for a second

question my values when I've been the leader in actually realizing the immediate threat of harm to that child,

himself, and the police officer's solution that caused minimal harm to the child compared to the damage he

was inflicting on himself at the time. Where are my values? That officer saved the boy's life and you're

crucifying him. Where are your values? What about all of those incidents where kids, teenagers, and even adults die

in a struggle because the gun went off, the knife/glass/weapon slipped and killed the person they were trying to

protect? What do you do then? You crucify the police officer for not doing his job properly without hurting someone

else because he had to use a method other than the best he had available because some 'armchair police officer'

(taking the term from football) thought he could do a better job.

I'm not saying walking up to a kid and

shocking him with a stun gun is perfectly normal. I'm saying in that situation, it was justified. The kid is fine,

there was no permanent harm done because of the incident, and any hesistation from that officer could've cost the

boy his life. That's how I see it. The officer did his job and saved a child's life. Where are my values? They're

right here where I support the people who do good in this world and only question them when they use excessive force

to harm a human being instead of help them.

There are much worse crimes in this world than temporarily

shocking a child to prevent him from hurting or killing himself. Those are the ones I'm worried about.



Values...more like priorities. The child's life was number one on that man's list, and you're all willing to

risk the child's life just so you don't use a stun gun and look bad. To me, that's wrong.

[HK45Mark23]

Well Stated Panch!



I agree. I have to ponder how to address tough situations that are life threatening every day. I

saved a girl form a rapist just 5 months ago. I also saved my self from two street thugs with base ball bats 2

months ago. In my aria we have right to carry permits and I have carried for 12 years. I teach safety and

marksmanship. I personally make my own ballistic gelatin and conduct ballistic studies. I spend a lot of time

studying physics relating to firearms and projectiles and going to marksmanship competitions. I have to contemplate

proper storage, the law and safety every day. To acquire a permit you must file an application to the Police and

State Police with finger prints. The application reads “This is not a permit to use a firearm it is a permit to

carry a fire arm. The only way you may use your firearm is if someone has the intensions and ability to cause

severe bodily harm to you or someone else’s person.” According to the law if you use profanity directed toward a

person when in an altercation with them you can be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon if you are armed when you

do it. You bare the responsibility to do every thing possible to defuse a bad situation. If you can run, run. You

may only use deadly force to stop some one from causing severe bodily harm or death to you or some one else.

You can’t just get mad because some one talks bad about your mother or

something. But if you go into a bank and some guy picks up a little

girl and places a gun to her head and says I’ll blow her head off,” then you can legally pick him off and be

justified by the law. He was armed and had intentions to cause severe bodily harm or death to the little girl.

Many police are glad to arrive at the scene of an attempted rape to find an armed citizen with a rapist on the

ground face down waiting for the police to arrest him. I have been there. If he did not drop the knife that he had

to her throat I would have done what I had to do. I was not happy to be in that situation. I hope it never happens

again, but if I have to, I will do what I have to do to stop a horrific crime against a law abiding citizen. I

spent several days thinking about what happened. I thought about the ramifications of what could have happened.

How I felt about that was on my mind for weeks, I did not like it. I still know a woman was saved. It was

something I could not have done because of my stature if I was not armed. Now with the guys that thought I would be

a fun target because I am a smaller guy and they were both about 6’. As they approached me and I realized what was

about to happen, they were going to beet me with ball bats, I prepared like an old west gun fighter. I pulled my

shirt so to give me access and I un-latched it so I could use a quick drawl technique. Then they said “What, you

going to shoot us?” I said, “I don’t want to do that to your family and friends. My heart breaks just thinking

about all the people who’s life will be affected and will morn the loss. But, I will if I have to. I think it is

best for all, that you go home and enjoy your families. I suggest you go and give your mother a big hug and kiss.”

One of them put the bat about 3 inches from my face called me a short ugly mf and then they turned around and went

home. They cursed me all the way down the road. I am glad they lived. I am lucky. It is hard to defuse a bad

situation. You can’t think clearly. The adrenalin flows thick. You have to resort to training. I feel that I

could of disarmed the child manually, but I was not there. Pancho is correct there was ultimately less harm done

than if nothing was done. It is good to contemplate what your options are and how you can deal with a situation

because when it happens you don’t have the time to think about it you must act. P.S. What is an HK45Mark23?


HK45Mark23

[belgareth]

I've been avoiding this

discussion because nobody on this forum was there and the details were very thin so we couldn't possibly know the

circumstances well enough to have a valid opinion. I agree with the comments about armchair quarterbacking the

event.

There were a lot of good arguments made for both sides of the debate. The one thing that is clear to me

though is that there was something dreadfully wrong in the first place, before it ended up with a child holding a

piece of glass. That is where our system failed the child; not in the final resolution, if you could call it that. I

hear all sorts of arguments about how we would have/should have handled it but hear nothing about how it could have

been prevented. I know from my own experience and training that almost every violent situation can be prevented and

that is where the real skill comes in and where the questions should be directed. Where did we go so far wrong that

a child felt so threatened or was so disturbed as to want to do himself or others harm?

[Pancho1188]

There were

a lot of good arguments made for both sides of the debate. The one thing that is clear to me though is that there

was something dreadfully wrong in the first place, before it ended up with a child holding a piece of glass. That is

where our system failed the child; not in the final resolution, if you could call it that. I hear all sorts of

arguments about how we would have/should have handled it but hear nothing about how it could have been prevented. I

know from my own experience and training that almost every violent situation can be prevented and that is where the

real skill comes in and where the questions should be directed. Where did we go so far wrong that a child felt so

threatened or was so disturbed as to want to do himself or others harm?
:goodpost: This is what I was

thinking, and I am sure DST was thinking the same thing as a professional in the field.

[koolking1]

Well, perhaps we should

leave it to the courts to decide for us in these two cases. I know if I were a parent of either of them, it would

go to court. I think it will. I will try to follow-up on this issue.

D Adams: "Then if your so High

Caliber... why would you do something petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???



Kinda shots holes in any opinons you throw out there.

Adams"

Well Adams, did you not first

stereotype myself and others by proclaiming that we didn't really have the right to an opinion because "we hadn't

been there, done that". You were the first to jump to conclusions about posters on this thread. I can assure you,

we do have the right to our opinions and you are always welcome to criticise them if you so wish. You are smart,

now would you just please take a refresher course in H.S. English so your opinions will be easier to read. The Air

Force needs people who can write effectively. Do yourself a favor, take that class and one day you'll also be

"High Caliber"

[koolking1]

MIAMI (Nov. 20) -

The head of Miami-Dade Schools is asking police to never again use stun guns on elementary school children, as

officers have in at least two recent cases.

In a letter released Friday, Superintendent Rudy Crew told

Miami-Dade Police Director Bobby Parker that "certain tactics should never be used in dealing with young children -

particularly within a school."

The letter was released the same day Parker held a news conference to defend

the use of a 50,000-volt stun gun on a 6-year-old boy in a school office, saying the child had cut himself twice

with a shard of glass and was threatening further harm to himself.

Parker acknowledge that it was

questionable when an officer used a Taser stun gun on a 12-year-old girl, who was fleeing officers because she was

drunk and apparently skipping school.

Police officials did not return a call Saturday seeking comment on

Crew's letter.

On Friday, Parker said officials were reviewing their policy on stun gun use but that

officers will be allowed to continue using them until the review is complete.

The 6-year-old boy who was

stunned on Oct. 20 was treated and then hospitalized for psychiatric observation for five days. A lawyer retained by

his mother has not yet decided whether to file suit.

The girl was checked by a doctor after she was zapped

Nov. 5. The officer in that case voluntarily gave up his Taser, police spokesman Pete Andreu

said.


11/20/04 15:15 EST

[DAdams91982]

Well,

perhaps we should leave it to the courts to decide for us in these two cases. I know if I were a parent of either of

them, it would go to court. I think it will. I will try to follow-up on this issue.

D Adams: "Then if your so

High Caliber... why would you do something petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???



Kinda shots holes in any opinons you throw out there.

Adams"

Well Adams, did you not first stereotype

myself and others by proclaiming that we didn't really have the right to an opinion because "we hadn't been there,

done that". You were the first to jump to conclusions about posters on this thread. I can assure you, we do have the

right to our opinions and you are always welcome to criticise them if you so wish. You are smart, now would you just

please take a refresher course in H.S. English so your opinions will be easier to read. The Air Force needs people

who can write effectively. Do yourself a favor, take that class and one day you'll also be "High Caliber"


When all else fails... attack mistypes. Scraping the bottom of the barrel are we. You have never thought way

ahead of your typing???

And no I wasnt sterotyping... I was saying you have never been presented with these

situations... so therefor, you dont know what they were going through.

Adams

PS... I will read every post

you throw up VERY carefully, to try and pick up tips inside them, so when I come back to the civilization I have

sworn to protect... they will show me the same respect of a person like you. "High Caliber"

[belgareth]

I think this has gone far

enough off track. Let's drop the personal attacks so I don't have to close the thread.

[Surreal]

If the cop can touch the kid

with a device 3 inches from his hand, the cop can CERTAINLY reach out and SMACK the kid. No, I meant grab the hand

the glass was in. How hard is it for any number of adults to bum rush a tiny kid. Glass or no glass.

Any human

extremly hurting himself, especialy at such a young age, is mentaly unstable. No degree of good or bad parenting can

"fix" a chemical imbalence in the human brain/body.

[DrSmellThis]

I hope most realize that there

is no interesting debate here.

Pancho, you've been much improved in your posting, and I've been

cheering for you; but please stop pretending you know what you are talking about in this case. Mark's last gun

enthusiast rant about "quick drawling" while discussing handling disturbed six year olds was just about absurd

and ironic enough.

I'd love to see this thread closed. I'm losing my patience with all this stupid anti-child,

pro abuse talk.

[koolking1]

For me, closed.

[HK45Mark23]

I hope

most realize that there is no interesting debate here.

Pancho, you've been much improved in your

posting, and I've been cheering for you; but please stop pretending you know what you are talking about in this

case. Mark's last gun enthusiast rant about "quick drawling" while discussing handling disturbed six year

olds was just about absurd and ironic enough.

I'd love to see this thread closed. I'm losing my patience with

all this stupid anti-child, pro abuse talk.
Really

Doc,

I was referring to the fact that things happen in an instance

and there is no time to think. I meant that a person must be prepared to deal with tough situations and able to

react in an instance. I saved a woman’s life and saved her for being raped. Because of my reflexes and athletic

history I am capable of making instant decisions and implementing them. I was in a situation where a child has

picked up a dangerous item and I immediately but gently grabbed his wrist and removed the object. The child did not

know what happened or why. I then sat the kid on my lap and said “Hey there little partner that could hurt you. We

would not want that. So here is a toy you will like this much better any way.” I believe this was at one of my

dads Mexican friends house, the child was about 5 and the object was a sheaf knife. The kid was not harmed and all

was well. But no one else did any thing. I reacted instantly and was furthest from the child. Bruce Lee said he

always thought about how to defend him self if some one or any one around him attacked. This constant thought about

defense made him a champion martial artist. I never condone child abuse. But I also know that it is necessary to

protect a child even if they don’t like it. I if a child wants a knife and I take it a way and he cries I don’t

care. I am not worried if the kid is offended by not being able to play with a knife. My post was referring to

society’s ignorant belief that disciplining a child is wrong and abuse. This is not true. To not incorporate

structure and strict discipline in a child’s life leads to a nonproductive and criminally minded adult. Every child

I grew up with who had parents that would not discipline them have became criminals and have low morals and ethics.

They never were taught that there is a code of conduct. They don’t now and have never respected any one. They only

want to serve their own selfish needs. Their actions are a result of their desires and wants. They have no

structure now and no direction in there life. This child probably has a parent like this and they have neglected

their child. They have not broken the chain of abuse and this child that was zapped will also grow up to abuse his

children. Also for the comment about how they could get close enough to zap the kid yet could not subdue him. I

think the machine used was the type that shoots two barbs with wires attached. This type works up to 20 feet or so.

The earlier post of mine was only to serve as an informative post as to the kind of tool used on this child, the

latter actually referred to the need to train mentally to deal with bad situations. In school there are fire

drills. In life we should think about how to deal with problems. From bad children to domestic terrorism and

catastrophes, they all have to be dealt with. Thanks to the people on 9/11 who sacrificed them selves to bring down

the plain and save more people than were lost. Some one put together a plan and implemented it. Doc, Thanks I am a

big fan of yours. I love to be here and am glad to be challenged by you. This is democracy at its best. God bless

the U.S.A. and our freedom to engage in intellectual conversation. Thanks for Pheros and I will get another one

before it is gone.

HK45Mark23

[bjf]

Man Dies After Deputies Use Stun

Gun

METAIRIE, La. (Dec. 4) - A man sheriff's deputies had shot twice with a stun gun died Saturday, a day

after he was pulled over for driving erratically, officials said.



AP
Taser stun gun



Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office spokesman John Fortunato said Patrick Fleming died at a hospital. Officers

had used a Taser stun gun on him twice when he fought with them - once after the traffic stop and then later at the

jail.

Fortunato said Fleming, 35, was hospitalized after officers zapped him a second time and his breathing

became labored.

Fortunato said the office would have no further comment Saturday. There was no immediate word

on when an autopsy would be conducted to determine the cause of death.

A records check found that Fleming was

wanted on a charge of criminal neglect of family. Fleming also had a history of resisting arrest and arrests for

possession of coca leaves, crack cocaine and marijuana.

Amnesty International reported last week that at

least 74 people have died in the United States and Canada in the past four years after being shocked with stun guns

manufactured by Taser International Inc. The company has defended its product, saying in the majority of

Taser-related fatalities, coroners have attributed the cause of death to heart problems, drug overdose or

asphyxiation.