Ya', they should have used a 12
gage, since he was obviously a terrorist!!
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Ya', they should have used a 12
gage, since he was obviously a terrorist!!
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
Hey Citizen!!! drop that
weapon or we'll shoot!!! Can you blame 'em - no tanks backing them up this time.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Why is that article
bullsh*t?
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??
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
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.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
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.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
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
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.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
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/
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, 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. 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
Last edited by HK45Mark23; 11-13-2004 at 12:54 AM.
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
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
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.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, you are right Adams, and I totally agree Belgareth. It is possibly a result of
improper parenting or abuse.
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
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,Originally Posted by DCW
instead of bitching about the problem???
Adams
Exactly! When you enter an arena you have to accept the risks associated with it.Originally Posted by DAdams91982
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
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.''
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Originally Posted by DAdams91982
Different topic??
I thought we were talking about excessive
force and proper training?
And who's bicthing...not here.
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.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
Originally Posted by koolking1
Thank you, Thank you, someone finally got
it.
DCW
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.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
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?
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
Well said Pancho.Originally Posted by Pancho1188
A great pleasure in life is doing what people say you can not do."
Originally Posted by DAdams91982
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
It's hard for me to believe
people are defending using a stun gun on a six year old. Amazing.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks