Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Alison Kilkenny, who is married to the brilliant comic Jamie Kilstein, has a post about an appalling incident last year where a cop killed a teenager riding a bike with a taser shot at high speed.:
Late one night in October, a 17-year-old on a bike was chased by a police officer in a cruiser. When the boy refused to stop, the officer aimed his Taser out the driver's window and fired. The boy fell off the bike and the cruiser ran over him, killing him.
Another report on the same incident:
At about 12:45 a.m., said Moultrie, Victor left on a borrowed bike. From there to where the chase started was about four and a half miles. But it was about 1:45 a.m. that Officer Jerald Ard spotted Victor. Where Victor went after leaving Moultrie's house is unclear.Ard would later say that he tried to stop Victor because he had seen him at a construction site and thought he may have stolen something. But witness Victor Stallworth said he saw Victor ride his bicycle past the construction site without stopping. Months later, Ard gave investigators a different reason for stopping Victor: He didn't have a light on his bike -- only two reflectors.
A video camera on the dashboard of Ard's squad car recorded the brief chase:
Ard spotted Victor and did a fast U-turn to stop him. When Victor didn't stop, Ard veered to the wrong side of the street and up on the sidewalk behind the teenager.
The officer revved the motor, his tires screeching, as he followed Victor into the side yard of an apartment building. With his flashers and PA system on, Ard yelled at Victor to "stop the bike."
It is unclear why Victor disobeyed the order to stop, but the teenager continued pedaling, trying to escape. Ard followed his every move, driving in and out of the wrong lane of traffic and up onto the sidewalk again. One minute and seven seconds into the chase Ard fired his Taser at Victor, who turned into a parking lot. About two seconds later, Victor fell to the ground and Ard ran over him.
And if that isn't enough to make your blood boil, this certainly should:
A video, taken from the dashboard of another officer's car, recorded what happened in the minutes before the discovery:Three officers squatted next to Ard's car, looking under it at Victor. Ard unlocked the passenger side of his car and got something out. The object is light-colored and floppy, but isn't clearly visible. Ard, holding the object, crawled under the car next to Victor's body and stayed there for 40 seconds. Two minutes later, paramedics found a 9mm silver and black semi-automatic in Victor's pocket.
Lab tests showed the gun had been wiped clean. No fingerprints were on it -- not Victor's, not anyone's. Victor's family, as well as his pastors and friends, were aghast. Victor was scared of guns, they said. He would not have carried a gun around.
None of this is particularly unusual. The officers in the Atlanta PD drug squad who turned state's evidence against their colleagues testified that virtually every officer in the department kept bags full of drugs in the trunks of their squad cars to plant on people.
And guess what? A judge decided that the officer had not done anything wrong by firing a taser at a kid on a bike on the false basis that he might have stolen something that had never been reported stolen.
Politics
Comments
Voluntary manslaughter. Charge him, jury trial, let this officer have his day in court. He planted something on the kid to justify what he did. How on earth did a judge figure he did nothing wrong?
Our society's in that downward spiral faster and faster.
Posted by: Christopher | August 3, 2010 12:37 PM
And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free...
Posted by: Foster Disbelief | August 3, 2010 12:37 PM
At least since the police killed him when they ran him down they didn't have to be wrist-slapped by the judge for beating him after, too.
Posted by: debaser | August 3, 2010 12:40 PM
Is that some sort of joke?
So let me get this straight: the officer aggressively tries to pull the kid over 12:45 am, drives in a completely unsafe manner (as a habitual pedestrian, let me tell you that there is is absolutely nothing more terrifying than a car on the sidewalk), and then apparently it's "unclear" why the kid refused the order to stop? I would argue that he did the only rational thing - he tried to get away from the insane police officer who was, to all appearances, hunting him down.
Posted by: Tacroy | August 3, 2010 12:49 PM
A Google search shows that Victor Steen was black. But since racism doesn't exist anymore, that must be just a coincidence.
Posted by: Alan B. | August 3, 2010 12:53 PM
Alan B.: ...and mentioning race makes YOU the racist. See, liberals really are more racist than conservatives.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 3, 2010 1:01 PM
"He didn't have a light on his bike -- only two reflectors."
Well, that's certainly a justification. Stopping the kid from riding on an unlit bicycle was for his own good - he might have gotten hurt!
... wait.
Posted by: Arancaytar | August 3, 2010 1:02 PM
You shoot somebody on a moving bike and you're surprised that somebody can get hurt?
Police officers are morons for thinking that, and they're getting moron training in thinking a taser is anything different than a conventional gun.
Posted by: gwangung | August 3, 2010 1:25 PM
A continual bother to me is when an officer uses a taser in a safe and responsible way and people shriek about brutality. Because then when shit like this happens, it cheapens the actual justified outrage everyone should be feeling.
Posted by: Salmo | August 3, 2010 1:39 PM
oh, so the Taser didn't kill the kid. Seems like the headline is focusing on the wrong part of this terrible incident.
Posted by: Nick | August 3, 2010 1:52 PM
Yup, that's got to make the citizens of Atlanta feel way more secure.
Why is it when cops go bad, they go bad in a spectacular way?
Has that judge been impeached?
Taser training is explicit in emphasizing how the weapon differs from a firearm, as well as when and how it should be used. But,with people like Ard -- calling him a cop is an insult to honest cops -- using Tasers so stupidly, it would not be surprising to see the weapon banned.
Posted by: Mediajackal | August 3, 2010 2:10 PM
Agree with #10. Tasers don't kill people, cops with a plethora of deadly weapons, including automobiles and unregistered firearms, do.
Posted by: Shap | August 3, 2010 2:16 PM
@1: Voluntary manslaughter.
WTF? It is murder.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 3, 2010 2:20 PM
@11: Taser training is explicit in emphasizing how the weapon differs from a firearm, as well as when and how it should be used. But,with people like Ard -- calling him a cop is an insult to honest cops -- using Tasers so stupidly, it would not be surprising to see the weapon banned.
Tasers should absolutely be banned. What is a justification for keeping them legal?
I suppose somebody will say that the police have a Second Amendment right to electrocute people.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 3, 2010 2:25 PM
"What is a justification for keeping them legal?"
They can help police officers safely subdue violent offenders with minimal risk of physical harm. I recall reading a case where someone was threatening to cut their own throat with a shard of glass. The taser briefly removed his muscle control, and the cops disarmed and cuffed him safely. Tah dah.
Posted by: Salmo | August 3, 2010 2:29 PM
#15
That is absolutely the right way to use a taser. Right tool for the right job.
You are not using it right if a death like this ocurred.
Posted by: gwangung | August 3, 2010 2:37 PM
And guess what? A judge decided that the officer had not done anything wrong by firing a taser at a kid on a bike on the false basis that he might have stolen something that had never been reported stolen.
WTH!? Not even a bullshit slap on the wrist sentence!?
Posted by: KennyG | August 3, 2010 2:40 PM
#16
Agreed 100%. Tasers can be an excellent tool in the hands of people who know when and how to use them. Unfortunately, we only ever hear about them when they are misused, as in this case.
Anyway, the headline is wrong. It wasn't the taser, it was the idiot holding it. And more directly, it was the car. The taser takes third in this contest.
Posted by: Salmo | August 3, 2010 2:43 PM
@15,16,18: A sad incident that occurred in my town about a decade or so ago, when the cops here did not have tasers.. this guy with a history of mental illness starts wigging out and brandishing an ax. The cops are called because, well, it's a crazy guy with an ax. But they can't get close enough to subdue him, because he's got a giant ax. In the end, he apparently made a move to charge at the officers, and he was shot and killed.
There were questions over whether the cops were too trigger-happy... but in any case, that would have been a really good time to have a taser...
Posted by: James Sweet | August 3, 2010 2:50 PM
Bullfight @13,
A murder charge normally requires intent to cause death. So this is not murder. Even voluntary manslaughter is inaccurate, since it also requires intent. Reckless homicide, or criminally negligent homicide, would probably be the right charge.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 3, 2010 2:52 PM
Once again, the Taser was not the problem: the officer was.
Consider the alternative in many cases. There was a case a few years ago near me, a man with a kitchen knife, history of mental illness, charged at the police and was shot and killed. A would have meant that the man was alive and able to be treated.
Posted by: Bill | August 3, 2010 3:04 PM
The Taser is indirectly the problem. In all these cases the cops don't expect them to have deadly consequences. That's their fault, but Tasers should never have been marketed as non-lethal weapons.
Posted by: Chris From Europe | August 3, 2010 3:50 PM
Abolish the death penalty except for acts of negligence or malice leading to the deaths of innocent civilians by officials armed and employed by the state to enforce public policy. Problem solved.
Posted by: Chuck | August 3, 2010 3:52 PM
Now that I can agree with. It should be called a "less lethal weapon". It's far less likely to kill you than a gun, but a helluva lot more likely to kill you than a trip to the dentist.
Posted by: James Sweet | August 3, 2010 4:54 PM
@1: Voluntary manslaughter.
WTF? It is murder.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 3, 2010 2:20 PM
No, for Murder the prosecutor would need to proof that he intended to kill him. A second degree murder conviction may be possible but involuntary manslaughter is probably the best that the prosecutor can hope for.
More interesting is the tampering with evidence which would make a nice additional charge, but I doubt the prosecutor will have an appetite to lay any charges at all.
Posted by: Michael | August 3, 2010 5:43 PM
Is there such a thing as a non-lethal weapon? Perhaps there is, but I'm having trouble visualizing a weapon that one couldn't manage to kill someone with.
Posted by: James Hanley | August 3, 2010 5:52 PM
"There were questions over whether the cops were too trigger-happy... but in any case, that would have been a really good time to have a taser..."
Honestly, I'd rather have a few cases of crazy ax-wielders committing suicide by cop, than the current taser free-for-all, where it's being used in dozens, scores, of wildly inappropriate situations like elderly people, injured people, children, pregnant women, nonviolent disruptive protestors, people having seizures, etc.
And it's not like tasers are foolproof for suicidal people. They would be inappropriate for a jumper or a person holding a gun to their own head.
But stupid cops would use the taser in those circumstances anyway.
Posted by: Jon H | August 3, 2010 6:20 PM
"A [taser] would have meant that the man was alive and able to be treated."
Maybe, but just think of all the times it would be used inappropriately, possibly causing death.
Why save a few suicidal people, who want to die, at the cost of the lives of people who don't want to die?
Posted by: Jon H | August 3, 2010 6:22 PM
James Sweet @ #20 and Michael @ #25:
I don't practice in Georgia, but many states have what are called "depraved indifference" standards, under an offender's severely reckless conduct that leads to another's death is sufficient to meet the intent requirement for murder.
As far as I can tell with a quick search, Georgia's murder statute is Ga. Code Ann. § 16-5-1:
I'm not certain (and it would take an amount of research I'm not really interested in doing to be more confident about it), but it appears to me that the "abandoned and malignant heart" language in subsection (b) is a "depraved indifference"-like standard. Whether the cop in this case would have been likely to have been convicted under the "heart" standard, as that's interpreted in Georgia case law, I can't say.Finally, there's also subsection (c), which is about felony murder. It seems entirely possible to me that a motivated prosecutor could find a felony or two, committed by the police officer, that Victor's death was "in the commission of."
Anyway, the upshot is that it's not as simple as claiming that prosecutors would have had to prove intent to murder. In Georgia, implied malice and felony murder are two alternative possibilities.
Posted by: Rieux | August 3, 2010 6:46 PM
It's unfortunate how all this played out, and there was clearly a problem with the officer's methods. But it's also unfortunate that, had the victim stopped when the officer instructed him to do so, he'd still be alive.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate | August 3, 2010 7:44 PM
"Honestly, I'd rather have a few cases of crazy ax-wielders committing suicide by cop, than the current taser free-for-all,"
Because those are the only two options.
Posted by: Salmo | August 3, 2010 8:17 PM
The cop acted hugely irresponsibly, killed an innocent person, got off, that's it, end of story?
....
I'm disgusted. Poor kid. I wish there was something else that could be done - both to the judge and the cop.
Posted by: mishcakes | August 3, 2010 9:42 PM
to 19. No the cops should have waited it out or used a dog. our cops are fighting to get their sweaty little hands on Tazers in Aus and from all the early trials they misuse them. For instances like your man with an ax, we have had sick kids with kitchen knives too, the police WONT wait. it affects their ego to have someone disobey so they shoot or they tazer and yet another distresed or mentally ill person is murdered and their families who often have called for help feel guilty for the rest of their lives. Why trust bullies with weapons?
Posted by: yoyo | August 3, 2010 9:49 PM
It's unfortunate how all this played out, and there was clearly a problem with the officer's methods. But it's also unfortunate that, had the victim stopped when the officer instructed him to do so, he'd still be alive.
I think it's far more unfortunate that the policeman had an IQ less than room temperature.
Though I do think it's also unfortunate that you're blaming the victim here. I would not care to have you as a law enforcement official.
Posted by: gwangung | August 3, 2010 9:58 PM
It's unfortunate how all this played out, and there was clearly a problem with the officer's methods. But it's also unfortunate that, had the victim stopped when the officer instructed him to do so, he'd still be alive.
Why does someone always have to make this vapid observation? I swear, if there was a story that some guy ran from the cops, and the cops proceeded to shoot him in head, then went over to his house, killed his wife and kids, burned down his house, then pissed in the ashes, some jackass would comment "well if he hadn't of run..."
This kid is dead, and you label it "unfortunate"?
Posted by: Taz | August 3, 2010 10:21 PM
Salmo @31: "Because those are the only two options."
Yes, they are, in the real world of police we're stuck with, and the judicial system's tendency to let them get away with murder.
Posted by: Jon H | August 3, 2010 11:06 PM
I agree that the death is much more than "unfortunate" and that it's criminal that the cop was able to get away with planting a gun on the victim. However, what if the kid actually broke the law and was trying to get away? How would the situation change if the victim was truly a perpetrator? Would the use of the taser then be justified? Are you saying that if a danger of injury or death to the victim/suspect is present when trying to apprehend the suspect, cops should let him get away?
I'm not on the cop's side here, just playing devil's advocate.
Posted by: C. Chu | August 4, 2010 12:09 AM
And by "you" I'm specifically asking Taz @35 and gwangung@34.
Posted by: C. Chu | August 4, 2010 12:12 AM
I reached my limit with the law enforcement community two weeks ago when an employee in the pain clinic I visit monthly for the morphine I need to survive, informed me the DEA had strongly suggested to physicians who issue pain pills to do at least two unannounced urine tests a year.
Thats right, a few people commit drug crimes, so get out the fishing poles to see what incriminating evidence can be found within the entire population who need pain meds.
They have me over a barrel with my pants down because I cannot live without pain meds. Without them, my pain becomes intractable to the point I would need to terminate. On top of the pain the withdrawal symptoms would start and I don't know if I could live through that. I have wandered into withdrawal a few time for no more than a few hours. It is hell.
The reason I need so much pain medication? A little more than 15 years ago an idiot ran up on a sidewalk I was walking on doing 35 MPH. A drunk, hit & run idiot. A little ironic considering this post.
This bullshit of DEA coming between patients and their physicians is across the country. This link gives some detail to the intimidation by the DEA.
http://www.deasucks.com/index.htm
Through out the last 30 years or better, I have become disillusioned with life with these United States.
I graduated high school early so I could serve my country, now I would council my children to avoid the military, even if drafted. Why should our best men & women die to advance a fat cat's greed or a politician's machinations.
Our civil liberties have been removed and not returned.
A corporation can convince a city government they would make them money in taxes and the city can foreclose on your home and give it to the corporation. (US Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London)
During the last Bush administration, a war on foreign soil was used to suspend habeas corpus, due process of law and protection from search, here in the U.S.
For some reason, the new president, who I helped in electing to correct these abominations, has failed to act.
I hear more and more of police being able to run roughshod over citizenry without oversight. Pregnant women, elderly, children and developmentally delayed people are being tazered for not obeying cops fast enough. Police arrest someone and find no evidence, no problem, plant some, a judge will look the other way.
I do not think police corruption extends to the vast majority of police officers, but when I hear of fellow cops will remain silent, who will not "rat on a brother", I consider them just as guilty and should be punished just as forcefully.
I am not a teabagger. I am a liberal. Thirty years ago, I was a conservative, but I saw too much greed, meanness and theocracy in the Republican party to stay.
It is time for liberals to develop the backbone I know we have. Where is the outcry from the physicians, the AMA, against this DEA takeover of their clinics? Why are our Democratic congress members not acting more like Congressman Weiner of New York and less like corporate puppets?
Can you tell I am a bit angry? I've been pushed until my back in in the corner and I'm trying to figure out what to do about it.
Posted by: Pinky | August 4, 2010 12:51 AM
Pinky,
You should be angry: At the liberals and the Democrats they continually elect.
Do liberals have a backbone? Occasionally, but mostly I hear them just bitching about conservatives. Even when the Democrats have 2 1/2 branches of government, they whine about how the Republicans won't let them do what they need to.
Is there a country where the government actually works for the people?
Posted by: Yashimoto | August 4, 2010 1:35 AM
@37: Are you saying that if a danger of injury or death to the victim/suspect is present when trying to apprehend the suspect, cops should let him get away?
If he is suspect of nothing more than pilfering something from a construction site (and what would that be, small enough that he could carry it on his bike?) then yeah, let him get away, catch him some other day. If there is no clear and present danger to bystanders I see absolutely no reason to subject a suspect to clear and present danger either. Suspects—and even convicted criminals—are people too, you know.
Posted by: kai | August 4, 2010 3:25 AM
Read that sentence through again, and tell me if that's what you actually meant to say. Because taken literally, it means that it's better that cops should kill suspects in their custody than let them live.
Posted by: konrad_arflane | August 4, 2010 3:51 AM
#20, it's really a stretch to say that a guy who follows a bicyclist, hits them with a weapon designed to make them lose control, and runs the over immediately didn't MEAN for it to happen.
If he couldn't understand hitting someone with a car is often lethal, he needs to have not only his badge, but his DL taken away from him forever. He probably also needs to be in a mental institution.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | August 4, 2010 4:13 AM
It's funny, this tendency to blame the weapon. To say that the Taser was the problem here, and that because of incidents like this one Tasers should be outright banned. Do we blame the gun when somebody gets shot? The knife, when somebody gets stabbed?
The trouble here is the same thing that's seen over and over and over again, and rarely seems to be dealt with correctly: cops are people, not superheroes. They're not special, and shouldn't be treated differently. They're generally not even the smartest of people -- becoming a cop doesn't require a university degree or any particular amount of critical thinking skill, and often the people who are attracted to such positions are bullies and gun-happy idealists. And the system encourages corruption -- sometimes quite blatantly, and other times simply by giving cops the benefit of the doubt when it hasn't been earned (usually because people forget that cops aren't special, they're just people like any other people).
Tasers are an easy way of distracting people from the real problems within the law enforcement system. The fact that Tasers are a relatively new technology and their effects on a person may be unpredictable (especially if the person is in an altered state) makes them a bit scary, and it's easy for the media to whip up those uncertainties into irrational panic.
It's important to stay focused on the real issue, despite the smoke and mirrors being waved about. It's the person behind the Taser, and the organization behind that person, which truly requires our scrutiny.
Posted by: Karen | August 4, 2010 4:27 AM
Jon H @ 36
"Yes, they are, in the real world of police we're stuck with, and the judicial system's tendency to let them get away with murder."
And your solution, rather than working for better training or change in the system, is to take the tasers away. If there are good cops who use their tools properly and bad cops who use the same tools improperly, the solution is to remove or improve the bad cops, not to get rid of the tools.
Posted by: Salmo | August 4, 2010 7:24 AM
Karen, Salmo and the rest of you pro-jackbooted thug types:
There was not, apparently, an instant case for the police officer to give chase in an aggressive and very dangerous manner. Police are trained (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean) to avoid excessively dangerous maneuvers with their patrol cars--absent a compelling need to stop a violent crime.
Tasers are not the problem. Having the cops be allowed to use them IS the problem. Every cop who uses a Taser or firearm in the performance of his sworn duties to uphold the law, serve and PROTECT his community should be required, as a matter of course, to undergo tests to determine his mental and psychological fitness to do so. If he fails the tests he should be terminated or placed in an administrative capacity, one where he does not need and will not be issued weapons.
As for the Tasers, they are far from being the only non-lethal weapons avaiable to law enforcement. There are numerous tools available but none of them are as much fun to use, and some are quite messy when deployed.
It is too bad that the perpdecedent didn't stop. If he had he would at least have been handcuffed when the asshole Tased him, thereby lessening the chances that he would fall off his bicycle and into the path of said asshole's deathmobile.
Yashimoto:
Fuck you, you clown.
Posted by: democommie | August 4, 2010 7:49 AM
@Yashimoto #40:
I tend to agree; from this side of the pond, the majority of the Democrats elected to Congress are pretty much indistinguishable from the majority of the Republicans. Both your parties are right-wing; even the Dems are to the right of our current coalition. Perhaps if they ever actually, you know, elected a significant number of liberals things might change.
@Karen #44:
The tasers are a problem; they are marketed (by the police no less than by the manufacturers) as a non-lethal alternative to firearms. As a result, there is a considerable temptation to use them in circumstances where a firearm would not traditionally have been used. That of course plays into the apparent inadequacies in the personnel involved.
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 4, 2010 8:03 AM
I see people saying that getting shocked by a taser is better then getting shot, which is certainly true. I'd add that getting shot by a taser is much better then getting beaten with a nightstick, or even fists. This cop should be in jail, at best he caused an unjustifiable death at worst he murdered a kid. Personally I feel that as long as capital crimes exist, planting evidence should be one of them. I would prefer its punishment to be life imprisonment. I think the same of witness tampering, bribing a judge, or accepting such a bribe.
Pinky: Yhea, the DEA sucks. As a chronic pain patient myself I'm lucky to have a good doctor. Because of that I'm not directly scared of things like urine tests for compliance, perhaps I should be more worried. Given the legal structure we have around drugs should pain patients have some sort of requirement for some level of auditing? It seems like every other step of handling of narcotics is structured that way. The DEA like so many other agencies and levels of "law enforcement" seem to look at their jobs and see a need to punish more people. They don't see it as their imperative to stop the actions, rather it is their mission to punish those who commit the acts. This, I fear, is what is fundamentally broken with the way we deal with undesirable acts.
Posted by: Robert S. | August 4, 2010 8:43 AM
democommie #46:
Correct.
No, sorry, here you're wrong. Using tasers is not the problem. Using them CORRECTLY is. In this case, the cop used a taser in a situation where anyone with a double digit IQ could have seen that it placed the boy in serious danger of injury or death, in this case, by being run over by the cop's car. Leaving aside the question of whether it was appropriate to use the taser at all (which is highly questionable, at best), given a little thought, I'm sure the cop could have come up with a way to tase the boy in a manner that substantially reduced or even eliminated that danger. Off the top of my head, moving the car back into the actual road, accelerating to get in front of the boy, and tasing him from the front springs to mind.
Correct. Over here, in the UK, cops don't carry guns at all, except for special armed response units that are called out if and when needed. Instead, they have things like a simple spring-loaded extendable baton and CS Spray. Even tasers are restricted to firearms units plus some other, specially trained officers.
Posted by: Zmidponk | August 4, 2010 9:12 AM
@46: A pscyh evaluation isn't necessarily going to eliminate someone who would misuse a Taser. A few months ago, two officers in an Indiana town Tased an "out-of-control" 8-year old. Ka-WHAM!!! Plentiful manure impacted many air movement devices. Both cops were suspended pending investigation; one was eventually fired. It was a stupid, reckless, unnecessary use of a Taser. The cops involved said they were only keeping the kid from hurting himself. Hmmm. It's possible the boy would have suffered bruises, broken bones or other injuries if they'd physically subdued him. Or, let him wind down, wrap him in a blanket, and take him to a treatment facility.
There are conflicting reports that Tasers have caused deaths. Last figure I saw was seven fatalities; persons with heart conditions could be at risk. There are also risks during Taser training: I saw one guy literally blown backward off his feet; he sustained a career-ending back injury.
There are less-lethal weapons and lethal weapons; I do not believe there is a non-lethal weapon, because accidents happen. The Ard incident is not, obviously, an accident: It's idiocy. He should be jailed, for criminal stupidity if nothing else. In Indiana, he could be charged with reckless homicide.
Robert S: Yup, given the option between being beaten with an Asp or a PR-24 baton, and being shot with a Taser, I'll take the Taser: The pain stops when the Taser is turned off, although there are lingering tingly effects.
Bean-bag or rubber bullets are effective, unless the point of impact is in an eye or over the heart, potentially causing cardiac arrest.
Pepper spray does not always stop the attacker. Cops accept the possibility of being killed on the job, but they don't actively seek it (unless they've gone insane).
Recently here an officer Tased an 18-year-old who was rushing at him with a kitchen knife. The officer had already drawn the Taser; since the teen was within 10 feet of the cop, he said he could have drawn his 9mm, "fired to slide-lock," and still be fatally stabbed. The teen was bi-polar; his mother was trying to control him, but the officers who responded did not then know the methods parents and guardians of bipolar victims are taught. They do now.
So: more education for everyone: Cops in using Tasers, and termination for those who violate the rules. For the general public, to understand that when a cop says "stop," it's a really, really good idea to stop.
This doesn't solve all the problems of cop-over-reaction, or the perception by some citizens that they can do what they damn well please, or how to prevent someone who is temporarily daft from drugs or altered mental state from harming themselves or others. And no, I don't have solutions to all those issues. Perhaps we can figure them out together.
Posted by: Mediajackal | August 4, 2010 9:28 AM
Karen: It isn't that I think Tasers are a particularly dangerous device, its that police officers and security personnel use them indiscriminately. Someone complains while being pulled over? Tase 'em. Hear a protester say something negative about cops during a lawful protest? Tase 'em. Find yourself speaking to a hysterical witness who you can't calm down? Tase 'em. Consider a suspect's demeanor to be insufficiently respectful? Tase 'em.
The problem with tasers isn't their leathality; it is that police use them too often, and in situations where they aren't called for, like this one, and the reason why they use it so irresponsibly is that tasers are marketed as non-lethal and police are trained to use them for almost anything.
Posted by: Julian | August 4, 2010 9:52 AM
Mediajackal: That all makes sense, but what's the proper response when the officer asking you to stop acts crazy like this one did? If I was out riding my bike and a police officer started swerving across traffic and up on to side walks, yelling for me to stop, I don't know if I'd respond any differently than this kid.
Posted by: Julian | August 4, 2010 9:58 AM
C. Chu, yes, they should have let him go. Cops should only injure a suspect to prevent injury to themselves, the suspect or bystanders. Running them over is pretty much always going to be unnecessary.
Posted by: Jefrir | August 4, 2010 11:36 AM
Robert S: "I'd add that getting shot by a taser is much better then getting beaten with a nightstick, or even fists."
I dunno, a nightstick to my leg or arm is going to hurt like a bitch, but is highly unlikely to kill me. I can't say that with any certainty about the taser, because I have no idea how my body will respond to that sort of application of electricity.
The messed up thing is, the principle of operation of the taser is based on disrupting the key mechanism by which your body, including your heart and brain, operates. It should surprise nobody that it kills some people.
Posted by: Jon H | August 4, 2010 11:38 AM
Tasers are sexy, that's why they're used so much. a lot of cops (large number, not, necessarily a large percentage) love to knock down perps, put a knee in their back and shout at them. I've seen enough of it to know that it's not a negligible problem, especially with younger, unsupervised officers.
So, psych evaluations don't work in this instance? re-design them.
Police have an incredibly difficult job, I wouldn't want to do it. They, however, choose to do so. They take an oath, if they violate the oath, they should be punished, just like any other person--if that includes criminal penalties, so be it.
If cops are not going to held to a standard, why the fuck do we have one?
Posted by: democommie | August 4, 2010 11:41 AM
RAGE!!!!
I'm just going to leave a link to http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/ right here.
Posted by: Anon of Ibid | August 4, 2010 11:49 AM
However, what if the kid actually broke the law and was trying to get away?
What if you've broken the law? The next cop you see has as much reason to suspect you as they did that kid. You'll probably say you'd never run from the cops, and maybe that's true. I certainly wouldn't these days, but I can't say I never would have - not when I was young and foolish.
I don't know why the kid ran. Maybe he was scared, maybe he had some pot in his pocket, or maybe he was just being young and cocky. That's why there's supposed to be some reasonable standard. It's wrong for cops to use force to apprehend someone when they have no basis to suspect the person did anything wrong.
The cop later claimed he tried to stop the kid because he had no lights on his bike. Should cops pursue someone suspected of that with the same vigor as someone suspected of murder? Should they use the same amount of force to apprehend them? Nobody's saying cops should never pursue suspects.
Posted by: Taz | August 4, 2010 11:59 AM
Jon H:
I wonder how many cops are able to stop at just the right number of to subdue a suspect. The risks of injury or death from being shocked by a tazer seem to be infinitesimally larger then that of simply falling down. Now, that risk is not zero, and getting shocked hurts, so clearly use of a tazer is not the first action that should be taken. That said, I'd rather fall to the ground without having a broken arm to top things off. http://www.wikiradiography.com/page/Nightstick+Fracture
Posted by: Robert S. | August 4, 2010 12:30 PM
In response to Raging Bee (comment #6): Just because Alan B. did some research and told us that the decedent was Black doesn't make him (or liberals) more racist than conservatives as you alleged. The facts are the facts. Conservatives are only too willing to call liberals racists in a pre-emptive attack and to try to shift the debate. If you continue to use that tact, you hope to silence people and then claim a victory. We are on to you.
Posted by: Schmice | August 4, 2010 2:52 PM
Posted by: C. Chu | August 4, 2010 12:09 AM
I'm not on the cop's side here, just playing devil's advocate.
IMO, lethal force should only be legal in situations where it is necessary to prevent the use of lethal or extreme violence by the target (i.e. attempted murder / assault with a deadly weapon / rape / kidnapping /etc.
There is no way mere escaping with stolen goods (let alone escaping on a bicycle with goods stolen from a building site) can warrent use of lethal force.
And even without the fats of this case, it should be blatently obvious that knocking someone off a bike while chasing them in a car at high speed is itself potentialyl lethal.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | August 4, 2010 3:33 PM
@#60: Actually we have far more stringent rules (which seem to be ignored all the time and judges everywhere are complicit in these crimes). An officer is not allowed to (a) use excessive force (however that's defined) and (b) use force when not threatened; a common exception to (b) is when there is a threat to the public. So in principle you shouldn't ever use a taser on someone who's running away (unless they're armed) or riding away on a bicycle - not even a baton. You can chase 'em, but if they get away tough luck. If they are known to have a weapon (you actually saw it where it's concealed or they brandish it) then the rules change somewhat, but the "excessive force" thing still stands so you're not meant to, for example, shoot someone who's throwing small rocks at you.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 4, 2010 5:47 PM
Julian:
I don't know for sure, but I'd probably take it as an indication that the cop strongly wants me to stop and it might be wise to stop and find out why.
Obviously, the taser assault is absolutely beyond the pale, but I can't really fault the cop for beginning the pursuit (assuming he had some reasonable reason for asking him to stop to begin with). I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call it "acting crazy." If I see police lights flashing behind me when I'm driving, I don't think, "Madman on the loose! Run!" I think, "Better pull over."
I think it's important for police to give chase whenever it's reasonably safe to do so. Like it or not, a lot of people who stop when a police officer pulls them over would probably think about running if they didn't think that the threat of being chased and caught was credible. That's not a safe equilibrium for anybody.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 4, 2010 7:58 PM
assuming he had some reasonable reason for asking him to stop to begin with
But he didn't. That's kind of the whole point. Nobody would be raising a stink if he'd been chasing a murder suspect. A few years ago there was a lot of outcry about innocent bystanders being hurt and killed in high-speed pursuits. It's an inherently dangerous thing to do. So don't do it on flimsy pretenses.
Posted by: Taz | August 4, 2010 8:23 PM
He didn't? The original story was that he suspected the kid of theft. In light of the fact that he changed that story, I'm willing to believe that it was for a crime more like, "Riding a nice bike while black," but even on flimsy pretenses he had *some* justification for asking him to stop. The threshold for stopping somebody to question them under suspicious circumstances is pretty darned low as far as I know.
True, but I question the notion that chasing somebody on a bike really amounts to a "high speed chase." Bikes don't go that fast. The article notes that he drove on the wrong side of the road, but doesn't make it clear whether it was reasonably safe to do so. The account seems to be written to be as sensational as possible, so I wouldn't be surprised if "the wrong lane of traffic" was carefully chosen to imply "driving at oncoming traffic" when it really meant, "the wrong side of the road when no cars were coming." If it's dangerous, sure, break of the pursuit, but I don't see any evidence that it was. That being said, the cop seems to be dumb as a bag of hammers, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was also an unacceptably dangerous chase.
The fact that the chase started doesn't seem to me to be the problem. The fact that he tazed some kid in the back without provocation is a major problem. If it turns out that he planted evidence, that's an even bigger problem IMO. A corrupt police force is the type of thing that can collapse a civilized society. Fixating on the reason for stopping him or the initiation of the chase seems to be totally missing the point.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 4, 2010 11:00 PM
@GravityIsJustATheory (60):
As far as I can tell, there was no authorization of deadly force, and running the kid over was an accident. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) If the intent was to kill the suspect, why didn't he just use his firearm?
A bunch of arguments against my point consisted mostly of "deadly force should never be used unless the suspect is armed and dangerous; the suspect may or may not have been pilfering from a construction site, but this does not warrant deadly force." And I agree.
But this is a red herring - unless I'm mistaken, the cop never intended to run the kid over. Next question: if the kid wasn't run over but was incapacitated after the taser hit, how does the scenario change?
Posted by: C. Chu | August 5, 2010 3:01 AM
C. Chu:
The cop is a fucking asshole. He drove a several thousand pound vehicle onto the sidewalk and onto an apartment complexes lawn, among other places, chasing an individual on a bicycle. What fucking planet do you live on? If he had caught the kid, alive, he probably would have beaten the living shit out of him--or tazed him a few more times. Then he could have gone back to the station house and had a few yucks while filling out the paperwork for charging the kid with resisting arrest. He's a fucking asshole. That he may have planted a gun on the boy does not put him in a sympathetic light. If it could be proven he should be put in jail for, oh, I don't know, EVER?
Posted by: democommie | August 5, 2010 5:44 AM
Troublesome Frog - I'm willing to believe that it was for a crime more like, "Riding a nice bike while black," but even on flimsy pretenses he had *some* justification for asking him to stop.
Are you joking? "Riding a nice bike while black" is not a justification. It's an excuse, and it's wrong.
I question the notion that chasing somebody on a bike really amounts to a "high speed chase."
I'm not claiming it was a high-speed chase. I'm saying it's an analogous situation. Chasing a bike rider with a car is inherently dangerous. If you're going to do it, you need some justification. This cop had none. (Tazering the kid, of course, was just plain asinine.)
The fact that the chase started doesn't seem to me to be the problem.
I think it is the problem. The cops are creating a situation in which someone could easily get hurt. They should exercise some common sense before doing so. To me, that means they should not be able to accost people on a whim. The law actually says they can't, but the cops tend to ignore it. I guess you support them on that. I don't.
Posted by: Taz | August 5, 2010 9:35 AM
Why did he run? When I was a teenager, I was at a park with a friend after 11 PM. Two voices came from behind us - "Hi, what are you all doing here?" Not knowing who they were, we just kept walking. THEN the voices said "We're cops" and then we stopped. Turned out there was a curfew in town. But our first instinct was to keep going, not knowing who these guys were. Good thing they didn't taser us after we refused to stop the first time.
Posted by: Anne B | August 5, 2010 10:55 AM
I'm not suggesting that if the stop was justified if racial profiling was the reason. I'm suggesting that the suspicion of theft (which was the original reason given) is a reason to stop somebody. The post I was originally responding to basically said, "OMG! The cop approached him! Crazy cop! What should the kid have done!?!?" The bottom line is that *we don't know* exactly why he tried to stop him. It's suspicious, but we don't know. Given that, this began as a police officer approaching a kid to ask him some questions about what he was doing.
As a well-behaved suburban white kid in a low-crime area, *I* got stopped a few times when I was doing nothing wrong because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I took off running every time it happened, I'd have a criminal record by now.
Inherently dangerous? Really? Under all circumstances? We don't know what that chase looked like. I can think of a lot of ways to chase a cyclist in reasonable safety. The speeds involved make it pretty easy as long as there's no traffic. The description borders on farcical, so it's basically useless for any details. The one thing we do know is that the Tazer was involved (stupid and evil) and that at some point, he got close enough to fire a Tazer (not safe). We have no idea whether the chase was inherently dangerous to start.
My problem is with the notion that as long as you're willing to run away, you can get away with any petty crime or infraction. If we're never chasing people for minor infractions, minor infractions essentially become legal. How many teenagers whose parents would "kill them" if they got that ticket would seriously consider running if they thought they would get away with it?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 5, 2010 12:14 PM
I can think of a lot of ways to chase a cyclist in reasonable safety.
Well, too bad this cop didn't know about them. And you keep trying to pretend this cop had some justification for stopping this kid. What? Eyewitnesses have disputed the "theft" story, and the cop himself dropped it in favor of "no lights on the bike". Just how much effort should cops expend chasing someone for that minor infraction? After all, if they don't chase him down, no one will put lights on their bike. Sorry, I'm not impressed with the dire consequences to society you forecast if the cops use more common sense.
Posted by: Taz | August 5, 2010 1:46 PM
@ Yashimoto #40 - Fuck you for using the comment I wrote to spout the usual conservative bullshit talking point; "If there is a problem, then Liberals are at fault."
Frankly, I am getting fed up with conservatives like you using the word "liberal" as synonymous with "nigger."
In addition to being irritating, its' fascinating how your elite overlords have turned so many common words into conservative "dog whistle" sounds designed to elicit obedience from the lumpen-proletariat of the Tea Party.
Sinclair Lewis predicted our current situation way back in 1935. You can read Sinclair's prescient book It Can't Happen Here, on the Project Gutenberg web site for free.
Posted by: Pinky | August 5, 2010 8:06 PM
@ Robert S. 48:
Thanks Robert, you are close to what I think about random urine testing of the innocent.
I am not afraid illicit substances might be found in my urine. I have to take so many prescription drugs, there is no room for illegal drugs. I object to the testing on general principal; my rights:
should not be removed because DEA believes it is the best way to solve a drug problem.
If that type of thinking became mainstream, then all the homes in a city that had a burglary should be searched without warrant on the chance one of them might have the stolen property.
I have no problem with urine testing in the right situations. Perhaps this explanation from another article I wrote about urine tests will help:
➘ ➘ ➘
First a few words explaining my anger about the urine tests. When I was in the military, urine testing was referred to as "the golden flow test". I would have been happy to take a surprise golden flow test, because I wanted to know the people I served with were drug free. I did not want some doper getting me killed. I was never tapped for a golden flow during my entire 4 years in the Air Force. I had my doubts the tests were random, the people who looked like they may be druggies were squeezed for their nectar of narcotic nanograms routinely, while us "lifers" were not called in.
After my turn in the military and after a few desultory jobs, I gained employment at a nuclear power plant and hit my career stride. Working at a nuclear plant, I was also subject to random urine testing. I thought the program was necessary. In fact, I assisted in the setup of the program, granted in a minuscule way. I helped arrange for volunteers to walk through the testing process to train the administrators of the test. I told you my assistance was pretty tiny. I mentioned it to demonstrate I was enthusiastic about unannounced urine testing for workers at a nuclear plant. My guess is you are too.
Few would disagree with me in opposing drug use (including alcohol) when driving, performing surgery or any other activity requiring presence of mind and a steady hand. As you can guess, I am especially torqued at those who drive drunk, however if a person wants to get tanked at home or in a safe environment and they are not a danger to others, have at it.
After all that verbiage, you may be wondering, gentle reader, why I am so angry about random urine tests at my pain clinic. Urine testing, so the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) can determine if I have committed a crime, is a violation of my IV Amendment rights as laid out in the U.S. Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That gentle readers is the reason. I don't like my rights violated. In the military and nuclear plant employment, I knew the reasons for the tests and I wholly agreed with those reasons. If I did not agree, I could have not entered the military or I could have stopped working at the plant.
I am a medical patient requiring pain medication. I am seeing my physician with the expectation of "doctor / patient confidentiality." A federal law enforcement agency (band of rednecks?) have no right coming between me and my physician. Why is the DEA determining how medicine is to be practiced?
The results of this perverse meddling are people in intense pain not being treated properly and physicians, who do not step fast enough to the marching orders of the DEA, losing their livelihoods and incurring prison sentences for daring to treat their patients adequately.
For anyone still searching for my point, imagine the police barging into your house, your private space, and searching it without a search warrant or probable cause. That is how I feel when I am forced to provide a urine sample to satisfy the DEA I am not a criminal.
We better start drawing lines in the sand soon or get used to living without our rights.
Posted by: Pinky | August 5, 2010 10:23 PM
What did they expect would happen?
Posted by: CocaColaParty | August 6, 2010 4:49 AM
The problem with tasers isn't just that they will kill some people with a single application -- it's that we've given the cops tasers and they've turned them into torture toys. Report after report of incidents where tasers have been used *repeatedly* on people who are already cuffed and subdued. Tasers don't leave the kind of ugly marks that a beating does, yet they're much more likely to kill you.
When people are normally tortured with electric shock (think Abu Ghraib and 'extraordinary renditions') they can walk away from it since the jolts given are not being done with a device intended to incapacitate. If you are zapped repeatedly with a taser, the likelihood that you will die or sustain permanent heart or brain damage increases enormously. Because you can leave the darts in someone and jolt them repeatedly, there is no way to know that they were actually shocked many times.
There are so many good people that need work! If they are hiring these baby stormtroopers, they're doing so because that is the exactly the type of person they are looking for. And these are the people we're supposed to rely on to defend us from the Bad Guys? It's getting harder to tell the difference between the two!
Posted by: Karen Eliot | August 6, 2010 6:14 PM
I don't know if this entry will appear to anyone, but I thought I would post it.
The pain clinic I go to told me urine testing, imposed by the DEA, would go into effect this year. This was in July, 2010.
I went in to the pain clinic today, August, 2010, for my monthly visit to bow and scrape and beg for my regular prescription. Low and behold; I had to give a sample for a urine test.
The DEA must have been anticipating this fishing trip with glee to start going about it so soon.
"Warrant...Warrant? We don't need no stinking warrant."
Posted by: Pinky | August 26, 2010 5:37 AM