Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Or so it would appear, unless the judge refuses to accept a ridiculous plea deal.
A former Texas police officer who used a taser on his girlfriend during a fight is expected to get a plea deal that would keep him out of prison, KXXV reported Thursday. Oly Ivy was charged with aggravated assault after he shocked his live-in girlfriend, Amanda Juaraz, twice in the stomach and once in the face. If the judge accepts the plea deal, Ivy will received one year of probation and anger management classes.
The ex-girlfriend is not pleased:
The deal does not sit well with Juarez."I'm upset he's not going to prison," she said.
But Smith said Ivy's deal has many strings attached and if he violates the conditions of his probation he could face up to a year in prison.
If the Leon County Judge accepts the deal Ivy would receive a one year probated jail sentence. He will have to surrender his peace officer license, take an anger management class, be checked for substance abuse, enroll in a battery intervention and prevention program, pay a $1,000 fine, do 80 hours community service, and he would not be allowed to make contact with Juarez or his daughter for two years. A similar offense down the road would also garner Ivy a mandatory felony charge.
Ivy originally faced aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony.
"He used deadly force and I thought the charge should have stuck," Juarez said.
The judge should reject the plea. People die regularly from tasers and this guy assaulted her with it repeatedly. He should be facing major felony charges and serious jail time. But he's a cop, you see, and prosecutors cut sweet deals with cops.
Politics
Comments
People also die regularly from being hit with bare fists. Should bar fights be major felonies as well?
A Taser is not a deadly weapon. It is, in fact, less dangerous to both officer and criminal than using a nightstick or one's bare hands to subdue an insolent resister. Domestic violence is never acceptable, but if anything, this officer is to be commended for using a Taser to de-escalate the situation before he or his aggressive girlfriend suffered any genuine injury.
Posted by: Pat Donohue | December 20, 2009 9:40 AM
@Pat,
You must be joking...
"de-escalate"... his "aggressive" girlfriend. You are pretty bad at framing to make a case that does not reasonably exist.
This man used excessive force against this woman by tazing her multiple times including once in the face. The point still stands that because he is a cop he is receiving special consideration from prosecutors.
Posted by: DJ | December 20, 2009 9:56 AM
I'm hoping that Pat is joking...
Posted by: Circe | December 20, 2009 9:57 AM
The article doesn't say whether it was a police-issued Taser or one he acquired privately. Assuming it was the former, then using an official weapon in a private dispute should make this an even more serious matter than if committed by a non-cop.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | December 20, 2009 10:33 AM
Fuck off nameless one. JUST FUCK OFF. Nobody is the least bit interested in your insane opinions.* - DJ
-------------
& Ed HERE is a prime candidate to ban, permanently. Not even an amusement factor.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 20, 2009 10:50 AM
No Circe, Pat never jokes.
He is one though.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 20, 2009 11:14 AM
Dudes, it's long past time to start ignoring Pat D. He's clearly a major troll. Don't even bother banning him. If you ignore him he'll eventually go away ...
Posted by: Carpus | December 20, 2009 11:18 AM
Seconded #6 re #5. That's D*** M*****, mentally unstable spamming troll extraordinaire, the Ottawa Valley's gift to the internet (we are so proud). Kill-file on sight.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 20, 2009 11:20 AM
Well that was fast re my #8 (unless the comment numbers shift again :-)).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 20, 2009 11:28 AM
Why exactly was he offered a plea deal? Is there any discussion of that in any articles out there?
Posted by: Julian | December 20, 2009 11:44 AM
Ummm guys, assuming there is only one Pat* and not a doppelganger poe, Pat is a poe. That was made pretty obviously a few days ago with a couple of the arguments that Pat just kind of mailed in.
*Of course there could be someone posing as Pat and an actual nutjob Pat. I haven't cared enough to determine if this is the case. I also know it has been suggested that Pat is a new Poe for Mad the Swine who eventually let the curtain slip.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 20, 2009 12:16 PM
Back to the subject matter of the thread: I loathe police officers who think that they are above the law or are some special case.
Posted by: jws | December 20, 2009 12:26 PM
It would be interesting to hear the guys side of the story. The story seems to be entirely based on the prosecutors and the girlfriend's assertions.
Pat is correct in pointing out that people die from all sorts of things.
What is and is not 'lethal force' is somewhat blurred. The term of art used by some departments is that things like shotgun launched bean bags are 'less lethal'. A stick or collapsible baton can easily kill but they are also considered less than lethal. Tasers have to be compared to alternatives and some understanding that doing anything, and occasionally doing nothing at all, can lead to people keeling over dead. Life is birth followed by a tragic fatal event.
It would be interesting to see some good statistics on rates of injury and death when Tasers are used. And to compare them to other methods of restraint and control.
In this particular case it is not impossible that she was all over him and he reacted in what seemed the most reasonable way at the time. A lot depends on context and though some of the details seem damning they may not be all that.
Multiple Taser uses on one person are not uncommon, contrary to what you see in the movies they don't always immediate fall down and go limp at first contact, and if the person is activley fighting with you their getting a Taser to the face isn't all that uncommon. On the other hand if he walked in and Tased her without any provocation that would change the complexion of the situation considerably.
This exercise seems to be more about second guessing the judge, who was presumable aware of the details and context, and assuming that anything less than the potential maximum level of prosecution is entirely a result of his law enforcement status. That is possible. But without any actual evidence it is speculation. Little more than playing to the existing bias of the audience and cherry picking cases and accounts to support an assumption.
Posted by: Art | December 20, 2009 1:22 PM
He should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | December 20, 2009 1:29 PM
A Taser is a less deadly than a gun weapon. I assume if Pat is attacked by someone with a Taser he won't mind if the DA doesn't count that as being armed. Because of course getting Tazed and getting punched are exactly the same thing. The fact that Taser itself no longer refers to their weapons as non-lethal is purely a coincidence.
Posted by: Phil | December 20, 2009 1:46 PM
Well.. I would like to donate to the girlfriend to allow her to purchase her very own Taser. Then instead of we women using the good old knee when attacked.. we can aim the taser there instead.. One wonders if Pat would think it was de-escalation then?
Posted by: lise | December 20, 2009 2:07 PM
If I take a truncheon to a cop's head, that is assault with a deadly weapon. If I connect, that is aggravated battery. How sure of killing the weapon is has nothing to do with it. If it can kill, it's a deadly weapon.
A child's fists are not deadly weapons. A prizefighter's fists are.
Pepper spray, to an asthmatic, is a deadly weapon.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses, again | December 20, 2009 2:35 PM
At least he got fired.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | December 20, 2009 3:07 PM
"At least he got fired."
Also, he has to surrender his peace officer license. If I understand correctly, that means he has lost the ability to be employed as a cop, even as a security guard or bounty hunter. So the guy isn't getting jail time, but he is out of police work.
Posted by: Bill Poser | December 20, 2009 3:23 PM
Yes he's out of police work. In that state only.
Posted by: steve8 | December 20, 2009 4:14 PM
Posted by: Owen | December 20, 2009 7:38 PM
"But he's a cop, you see, and prosecutors cut sweet deals with cops."
Common, admit that's just bad thinking. I can think of a few other laws, that are felonies that could stick to this guy. "Not allowed to torture people" is one that comes to mind, and is a felony, or wobler. The cruel truth is that crime is under prosecuted, all crime. Certain people get special treatment, others don't, but it's highly circumstantial to "Where something happens" and "Who is involved". No point that people will truly listen, and act on is based on such a weak close "and prosecutors cut sweet deals with cops". If you get popped for drunk driving, and it's your first time, you'll get a 'sweet deal' too. Keep in mind that that behavior kills lots and lots of people...but in the US, we're pretty lenient with people that are driving around, and incidentally haven't hurt someone yet.
Disagree with me, but numbers tell the tale I tell, and I propose no absolute judgement that I base my argument on. I'm really verbose when I should just say "Oh please". Where I live, cops burn if they mess up. They get fired right away, before trial. If it works out for them, they apply to get their job back. It's highly circumstantial how these things get worked out.
Posted by: Jay | December 20, 2009 9:09 PM
...if anything, this officer is to be commended for using a Taser to de-escalate the situation before he or his aggressive girlfriend suffered any genuine injury.
Poe or not, you have to be a real fucking asshole to write that.
Posted by: Taz | December 20, 2009 10:40 PM
What disturbs me most is that this is yet another example of domestic violence being brushed off and punished with a slap on the wrist. This guy needs to be locked up FOR LIFE.
Posted by: WMDKitty | December 21, 2009 1:23 AM
Oh yeah, attacking someone with a restricted weapon isn't really assault with a weapon. Maybe the person wasn't really a victim but a masochist who just couldn't get enough.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 21, 2009 4:49 AM
We just had a case locally where a cop had drawn his gun on his wife during an argument - instead of being fired, arrested, put in jail, forced into therapy, etc., he was just put on temporary desk duty. Two weeks later he stabbed her to death and then shot himself, all to be found by their children when they got home from school.
This kind of thing really needs to be taken more seriously than "plea bargain".
Posted by: Carlie | December 21, 2009 8:21 AM
Aren`t tasers responsible for permanent brain damage for all victims ?
Can we really say this is always safer than bare fists ?
Through your posts, american policemen and custom officers appear as complete thugs that act above the law, with no concern for it. The ones trying to apply it have a tough time. Especially if they are not religious.
What would you suggest could be done to improve this situation, concretely ?
-Increasing fine/prison time for cops ?
-Harder exams for police officer ?
-Setup hotline and free legal advice for victims ?
... ?
Do you think this is going to get better ?
Posted by: Foie Gras | December 21, 2009 8:28 AM
I'm going to be the first to introduce comedy into a tragic event: this eerily resembles a scene from "The Hangover", so I'm gonna say "in the face.......IN.....THE......FACE!" and see how many people admit to chuckling.
Posted by: Cam Winston | December 21, 2009 8:40 AM
Generally I'm not a fan of the fact that you can sue someone in civil court for a crime for which they've already been tried in criminal court.
However this case seems to be a good place to do it. You have a plaintiff who doesn't want the plea bargain being sought by the defense. If the court grants it against her wishes, she should sue him into oblivion.
Posted by: eric | December 21, 2009 10:24 AM
@22 Ummm... I'm not sure because your post is a tad incoherent, but are you arguing that, law enforcement in the United States under prosecutes crime? Are you seriously suggesting that the country with the largest percentage of their population incarcerated is under prosecuting crime?
Posted by: SouthernFried | December 21, 2009 10:57 AM
You can underprosecute and still over incarcerate. By choosing who to prosecute and who not, you're letting the prosecutors be the judge and jury.
Re criminal vs civil cases for the same incident... criminal cases are society trying to protect itself from antisocial acts. Civil law is an attempt to redress the damage to individuals.
Posted by: BAllanJ | December 21, 2009 11:13 AM
BAllanJ @ 31: I see your point, but to get incarcerations you generally need prosecutions. The justice system may be selective about who they prosecute, but they still over prosecute, for example The guy who was convicted for being in his own kitchen naked. That should have never be prosecuted much less reached conviction. There are other examples, but I'm feeling to lazy to dig any more up. I'll accept that we may under prosecute with one caveat, that we under prosecute members of the legal professions (judges, lawyers, and cops) and over prosecute everyone else.
Posted by: SouthernFried | December 21, 2009 11:52 AM