The issue with Tasers..

[Au165]

#Seahawks 2017 2nd round pick, DT Malik McDowell, who's gotten released since, was captured on video getting into a crazy fight with a policeman via @TMZ

McDowell was eventually charged with 2 counts of felony assaulting and resisting.https://t.co/QFHA2x27uj pic.twitter.com/Nqcxy8ww7C

— Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) July 9, 2019

...is that sometimes they don't work. Here you see what will eventually be former NFL player Malik McDowell refusing officer instructions. The officer gives him every chance in the world to comply then he attempts to tase him only for it to not work. At that point McDowell rushes the officer tackling him to the ground where they wrestle around. Luckily, the officer eventually gets control of the situation and isn't injured, but that very easily could have ended up deadly for the officer. 

I am always a proponent of using less than lethal force when possible, but I just wanted to highlight that it's easy to say why don't they taser someone after the fact. The reality is they don't always work and this was just an example of a situation that could have ended very poorly for the officer. One of the subsidiaries of the company I work for is in the law enforcement market and guys being tasered and it not phasing them is becoming a more common occurrence, especially with drug use. There is a company making a product called BolaWrap that is interesting, but they haven't scaled yet and it has issues of their own.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 10:26 AM)Au165 Wrote:

#Seahawks 2017 2nd round pick, DT Malik McDowell, who's gotten released since, was captured on video getting into a crazy fight with a policeman via @TMZ

McDowell was eventually charged with 2 counts of felony assaulting and resisting.https://t.co/QFHA2x27uj pic.twitter.com/Nqcxy8ww7C

— Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) July 9, 2019

...is that sometimes they don't work. Here you see what will eventually be former NFL player Malik McDowell refusing officer instructions. The officer gives him every chance in the world to comply then he attempts to tase him only for it to not work. At that point McDowell rushes the officer tackling him to the ground where they wrestle around. Luckily, the officer eventually gets control of the situation and isn't injured, but that very easily could have ended up deadly for the officer. 

I am always a proponent of using less than lethal force when possible, but I just wanted to highlight that it's easy to say why don't they taser someone after the fact. The reality is they don't always work and this was just an example of a situation that could have ended very poorly for the officer. One of the subsidiaries of the company I work for is in the law enforcement market and guys being tasered and it not phasing them is becoming a more common occurrence, especially with drug use. There is a company making a product called BolaWrap that is interesting, but they haven't scaled yet and it has issues of their own.

Agreed that they don't always work.  However the use of deadly force as a first option, while working, tends to restrict one's right to a trial for example.

Not every stop is like this one.  

Police have a dangerous job.  No doubt.  One I would not do.  But they must also walk that line of not overreacting too.  It's a tough call but I still lean toward better training at keeping situations calm before physical altercations can arise in most cases.

We have a real problem with people not trusting police and police being defensive with people because they fear they are not trusted.

Something has to be done to fix THAT or we will see more incidents like the one in the video.

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 10:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: Agreed that they don't always work.  However the use of deadly force as a first option, while working, tends to restrict one's right to a trial for example.

Not every stop is like this one.  

Police have a dangerous job.  No doubt.  One I would not do.  But they must also walk that line of not overreacting too.  It's a tough call but I still lean toward better training at keeping situations calm before physical altercations can arise in most cases.

We have a real problem with people not trusting police and police being defensive with people because they fear they are not trusted.

Something has to be done to fix THAT or we will see more incidents like the one in the video.

In all honesty, deadly force was justified in this case by almost every standard. In fact, the report says during the arrest McDowell kept putting his hands on the second officers gun holster. The problem is if people don't agree with that after the fact because it turned out okay this time then they will never agree with deadly force short of a guy holding a gun to the cops head and that is part of the issue. 

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 10:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: In all honesty, deadly force was justified in this case by almost every standard. In fact, the report says during the arrest McDowell kept putting his hands on the second officers gun holster. The problem is if people don't agree with that after the fact because it turned out okay this time then they will never agree with deadly force short of a guy holding a gun to the cops head and that is part of the issue. 

And, again, I side with not using deadly force unless absolutely necessary.

And there ARE times when it is is necessary.

But we need to find ways to keep these times to an absolute minimum and to be treated very seriously.

And, again, we also need to find ways to keep incidents from escalating and start restoring trust between  groups.

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 10:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: And, again, I side with not using deadly force unless absolutely necessary.

And there ARE times when it is is necessary.

But we need to find ways to keep these times to an absolute minimum and to be treated very seriously.

And, again, we also need to find ways to keep incidents from escalating and start restoring trust between  groups.

Sure, but in THIS case do you agree once tackled deadly force should have been on the table? 

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 10:53 AM)Au165 Wrote: Sure, but in THIS case do you agree once tackled deadly force should have been on the table? 

As a last resort.

This officer could legitimately say he feared for his life I suppose.  But it was still a fight, not a gun fight.

Like I said hard call and I'd be more than likely behind the use of deadly force in this case, but I still have my reservations with it.

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 11:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: As a last resort.

This officer could legitimately say he feared for his life I suppose.  But it was still a fight, not a gun fight.

Like I said hard call and I'd be more than likely behind the use of deadly force in this case, but I still have my reservations with it.

That is probably the issue then, you can die in fights even if they aren't gun fights. When a 6'6 300 pound man is on top of you, there is no waiting until he has chocked for 5 seconds before you protect yourself or bashed your head into the ground one time instead of two. The expectation of how long an officer must wait in this situations is unrealistic and overly dangerous to the officers. It only takes that person on top of you a second to get your gun from you and use it if we are still hanging on the gun requirement for deadly force.

I agree about all the other things that should be happening in relations, but the public needs to reset their expectations of what an officer's risk threshold is because right now it seems to be based on fantasy. 

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 11:03 AM)Au165 Wrote: That is probably the issue then, you can die in fights even if they aren't gun fights. When a 6'6 300 pound man is on top of you, there is no waiting until he has chocked for 5 seconds before you protect yourself or bashed your head into the ground one time instead of two. The expectation of how long an officer must wait in this situations is unrealistic and overly dangerous to the officers. It only takes that person on top of you a second to get your gun from you and use it if we are still hanging on the gun requirement for deadly force.

I agree about all the other things that should be happening in relations, but the public needs to reset their expectations of what an officer's risk threshold is because right now it seems to be based on fantasy. 

When a person is killed running away or who is NOT engaged physically with an officer...those are fantasy.

Each situation is different.  If this officer has shot and killed in self defense it would be understandable compared to many other situations.

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 11:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: When a person is killed running away or who is NOT engaged physically with an officer...those are fantasy.

Each situation is different.  If this officer has shot and killed in self defense it would be understandable compared to many other situations.

That is a straw man because frankly that has nothing to do with my question, your response and then my comment on your response. I was pointing out this situation and you added it was a "fight not a gun fight" which in itself is what triggered the pure fantasy comment. Trying to jump out of the context of the conversation does nothing in terms of productive conversation.

Was this person running away? Was he NOT engaged physically? You yourself said above you could possibly see it being acceptable here but you "still have your reservations". If this situation, which isn't anything like what you talked about above, is raising skepticism then my point still stands. 

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 11:09 AM)Au165 Wrote: That is a straw man because frankly that has nothing to do with my question, your response and then my comment on your response. I was pointing out this situation and you added it was a "fight not a gun fight" which in itself is what triggered the pure fantasy comment. Trying to jump out of the context of the conversation does nothing in terms of productive conversation.

Was this person running away? Was he NOT engaged physically? You yourself said above you could possibly see it being acceptable here but you "still have your reservations". If this situation, which isn't anything like what you talked about above, is raising skepticism then my point still stands. 

Again in THIS situation.  And while not all fights are the same what if the cop was bigger and the suspect was a small MMA fighter? At some point the officer feels threatened enough to use deadly force.  Ok.  But not all fights are the same.

Then you said "the public needs to reset their expectations of what an officer's risk threshold is because right now it seems to be based on fantasy. "


I responded to that statement as a separate point about different situations that are not "fantasy".

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Again in THIS situation.  And while not all fights are the same what if the cop was bigger and the suspect was a small MMA fighter? At some point the officer feels threatened enough to use deadly force.  Ok.  But not all fights are the same.

Then you said "the public needs to reset their expectations of what an officer's risk threshold is because right now it seems to be based on fantasy. "


I responded to that statement as a separate point about different situations that are not "fantasy".

If the suspect is on top of an officer they are always green light to use deadly force. Again, seconds to kill someone from a dominant position. When you have decided not only to engage an officer physically, but to take a position of dominance, you have waived your expectation of a less than lethal response. Anyone who does combat sports will tell you it is easy to knock someone out, or even kill someone, from a mounted position.

The bigger issue here is drawing a firearm from your back and firing is difficult, so by even waiting until it's gone this far you may have waited too long to protect yourself.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 11:17 AM)Au165 Wrote: If the suspect is on top of an officer they are always green light to use deadly force. Again, seconds to kill someone from a dominant position. When you have decided not only to engage an officer physically, but to take a position of dominance, you have waived your expectation of a less than lethal response. Anyone who does combat sports will tell you it is easy to knock someone out, or even kill someone, from a mounted position.

The bigger issue here is drawing a firearm from your back and firing is difficult, so by even waiting until it's gone this far you may have waited too long to protect yourself.

Okay.

But that doesn't mean the public has a "fantasy" about lots of other uses of deadly force.

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: Okay.

But that doesn't mean the public has a "fantasy" about lots of other uses of deadly force.

My point was if the expectation here wasn't clear then the whole scale is skewed. Sure, guy running shot from behind is probably 99% unjustified. Guy not using force becomes a little tougher. This case though really shouldn't be debatable but the fact is many will, and that is part of the issue much like the things you originally pointed out. I was simply proving out an additional issue that needs to be addressed as well.

[*bfine32*]

I think the issue is he needed to see the officer's supervisor.

[Au165]

(07-10-2019, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the issue is he needed to see the officer's supervisor.

Haha yea, turns out he had a .189 BAC. In a longer video the officer is talking to him while he is still in his car and he tells him he is the supervisor. 

[*michaelsean*]

The officer also has to realize that if he is getting beat in a fight, then his weapon becomes vulnerable.

[GMDino]

(07-10-2019, 11:23 AM)Au165 Wrote: My point was if the expectation here wasn't clear then the whole scale is skewed. Sure, guy running shot from behind is probably 99% unjustified. Guy not using force becomes a little tougher. This case though really shouldn't be debatable but the fact is many will, and that is part of the issue much like the things you originally pointed out. I was simply proving out an additional issue that needs to be addressed as well.

Got it.  Understood.  I can see that point as well.

[Dill]

(07-10-2019, 10:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: In all honesty, deadly force was justified in this case by almost every standard. In fact, the report says during the arrest McDowell kept putting his hands on the second officers gun holster. The problem is if people don't agree with that after the fact because it turned out okay this time then they will never agree with deadly force short of a guy holding a gun to the cops head and that is part of the issue. 

That is the clincher for me.  Too late if some crazy manages to get your gun out of the holster.