Video: Florida woman tasered by cop now brain dead after collapsing onto concrete

posted at 8:20 pm on February 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

In the annals of obligatory HA posts, there may be none so obligatory as this. The suspect was arrested for leaving the scene of two traffic accidents; when they caught her, she had a suspended license and was high on cocaine and oxycodone. They put her in the squad car and then

While she sat in the back of his cruiser, Maudsley removed her right hand from the handcuffs, the report said. When Cole opened the door to take her out, she told him, “I took this off.”

Maudsley was placed back in handcuffs and Cole took her into the substation, according to the report. As he worked on paperwork in a conference room, he sensed that Maudsley was moving, turned, and saw her at the main exit. He asked where she was going and got up from his seat before she ran out the door.

In an interview with investigators, Cole said he saw Maudsley turning in the direction of U.S. 19 after she exited the substation.

“If she makes it there, you know, there’s no winning,” the report quoted him saying. “I can’t let her get out and get run over,” he later said.

Cole ran after her, nearly caught up to her in front of the police station — and then pulled his taser and fired. She fell, smashed her head on the concrete, and now she’s in a vegetative state. The verdict of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on his taser use: Justified.

FHP policy allows troopers to use Tasers when it “reasonably appears necessary to control non-compliant individuals who have escalated their level of resistance from passive physical resistance to active physical resistance (i.e.: bracing, tensing, pushing, or pulling).”

The policy goes on to say it must be apparent the detained person has the ability to physically threaten others or is trying to flee or escape. It also notes that Tasers shouldn’t be used on someone who is handcuffed, but says there still could be times when even that is justifiable.

“The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted an independent review,” Sgt. Steve Gaskins, a spokesman, said Friday. “FDLE’s investigation found the trooper’s actions were legal and within the scope of his duties.”

Follow that last link and read about the numerous ways in which they failed to restrain her properly. They cuffed her in front instead of in back, making her a threat to swipe at a cop’s gun if she got within arm’s distance, and they didn’t cuff her to the chair when they were processing her. Then watch the dashboard video of what happened in the second clip below. To my eye it looks like the cop is literally within about a foot of her as they enter the frame, but he’s already got his taser out and appears to be slowing up, having presumably decided to just zap her and be done with it. I’m not convinced he couldn’t have caught her if he had been running at full speed; on the contrary, it looks like he decided he didn’t need to run because he had the stun gun on his hip to slow her down. That’s the taser debate in microcosm: Should cops use it only as a nonlethal last resort against suspects who are violently resisting or should they use it to subdue suspects who are momentarily out of their control for whatever reason? Exit question: If he was afraid she’d run into traffic on the highway, how come he didn’t chase her to the edge of the highway and then, if he still couldn’t catch her, zap her there?




Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 1:52 AM

What that cop did was tantamount to smashing the back of a kid’s head in with a baseball bat… for leaving the scene of an accident. It’s unconscionable.

Murf76 on February 22, 2012 at 1:55 AM

I sometimes fear that we conservatives fail to truly appreciate the law we supposedly espouse as it pertains to citizen rights. Too many are willing to convict a person, even unto death, without due process.

Murf76 on February 22, 2012 at 1:50 AM

This whole thread of comments disturbs me – folks participating are supposed to have their heads screwed on straight and they cannot see the forest for the trees.

The lemming-like approach to police are good and lawbreakers are bad is so stupid. Laws are nothing more than whatever the current or past politicians or appointed czar/EPA advisor etc… decrees. Shoot in one place you can get jail time for having a light the wrong color on your bicycle…

And the whole concept of the consequences fitting the crime has completely been lost. Just as it is beyond stupid to put folks in jail for YEARS or even life in prison (with the three strikes law etc…) for minor offenses is mind-blowing. Nevermind that jail does not and is not a solution as it most often does not address the reason why the crime was committed in the first place… but anyway.. that’s another topic and work comes soon in the morning.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 1:56 AM

And I’ll add, in agreement with inspectorudy that I’ve had private conversations with cops who tell me point blank, there’s nothing that they can’t get away with so long as it involves a civilian and no cameras are running.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Any police officer who made that sort of statement has no more right to be in their profession than the officer in this video. From my experience they represent a small minority of the bulk of police forces in America.

I have been to countries where they are not a small minority. In those places, there is very little value on human life and the governments are known for their corruption. For those who are denouncing the drug addict and defending the officer – how are you ANY different from the Obama administration being willing to impose their set of values via the coercion by government?

I have little use for someone who proclaims themself to be a conservative but views “drug addicts” as expendable to the state while at the same time being willing denounce abortion as murder.

And for the record, I have addicts in my family and while I practice “tough love” (and am considered a cold hearted bastard because of it) I don’t think that gives anyone the right to take their life because they are not cooperating.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 1:58 AM

I have to repent of even considering the evil that I would do to the cop if he had killed my daughter the way he killed (or didn’t fully kill) this girl. But vengence is God’s. Anyway, read Dennis Prager’s column on the death penalty. And I hope the cop comes to realize what a bad, cowardly and selfish thing he’s done.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 1:59 AM

You have to realize that they are never held responsible for deadly force, never.

inspectorudy on February 22, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Riiigghhht

Because never in the history of the country has a cop been brought up on murder charges while on duty. That’s never happened a single time.

Dack Thrombosis on February 22, 2012 at 1:59 AM

Certainly no one ever turned around their life after using drugs or making a stupid non-serious bumping into a few cars idiot move right?

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 1:45 AM

He’s not a priest. His job is to enforce the law and that is what he did. If she didn’t want to deal with law enforcement then she shouldn’t have broken the law, rammed other peoples cars and made an insane dash for it.

No one is saying that she should not atone for her errors… I think you are missing that generally accepted point. The issue is that the captor did not properly restrain the individual off the bat and then instead of stopping the captive that is NOT THREATENING THEM or anyone else at that point in time in a non-lethal manner (tasers are not non-lethal no more than punching someone in the back of the head while they are running away from you with handcuffs on is not potentially lethal) The captor chooses to take potentially lethal force instead of alternative options. Thus the captive is in a coma.

That’s the problem. It’s not about being a priest, it’s about being properly trained to understand the high theshhold level that taking potentially lethal action has to cross was not met in this case and is oftentimes not met. Restraint of lethal force is a virtue not a vice when it comes to someone’s life.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Dack Thrombosis? Dack Thrombosis?!!

I wanted that name.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:03 AM

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 1:56 AM

What I don’t understand about people who would defend the use of lethal force on a stupid kid, is that, as constitutionalists, one would think we’d be particularly sensitive to the evolution of a police state.

Murf76 on February 22, 2012 at 2:04 AM

There was a corrupt cop back in the day in New York City, Becker I think his name was, who went to the electric chair for first degree murder.

Dack Thrombosis on February 22, 2012 at 2:04 AM

The captor chooses to take potentially lethal force instead of alternative options. Thus the captive is in a coma.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:02 AM

He didn’t shoot her.

He tazed her and she cracked her fool head open when she fell. If guys like you were in charge the cops would sit by and do nothing because any action on their part is potentially lethal. Can’t chase any escaping suspects in a vehicle.
Can’t taze anyone.
Can’t tackle anyone.
Can’t restrain anyone.
Can’t…
Can’t…
Can’t…

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Restraint of lethal force is a virtue not a vice when it comes to someone’s life.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Unless, of course, you like hob-booted self-righteous unaccountable authoritarian merciless enforcers.

This is what Shurrukin and the others don’t get: There is no right to punish beyond the scope of the offense. These callous mankind-hating culprits who promote, “you step over the line, you deserve your fate for being so stupid” will deservedly get that fate themselves, except for the mercy of God.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:15 AM

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 1:56 AM

What I don’t understand about people who would defend the use of lethal force on a stupid kid, is that, as constitutionalists, one would think we’d be particularly sensitive to the evolution of a police state.

Murf76 on February 22, 2012 at 2:04 AM

We are a nation of ill educated (in terms of factual history and understanding of past police states, current and past examples of socialism, communism, dictatorships and what the results of those philosophies of unrestricted/”fair”/perfect governments who have that power are) immoral, vapid fools… and when you have a nation of uneducated, immoral, vapid fools who care more about scripted fake reality tv shows than what that silly boring document was that our government is supposed to follow was about…. this is the result.

Sorry for being a downer but that’s the sum of it. Ignorance reigns supreme and the education system enforces it.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:16 AM

The captor chooses to take potentially lethal force instead of alternative options. Thus the captive is in a coma.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:02 AM

He didn’t shoot her.

He tazed her and she cracked her fool head open when she fell. If guys like you were in charge the cops would sit by and do nothing because any action on their part is potentially lethal. Can’t chase any escaping suspects in a vehicle.
Can’t taze anyone.
Can’t tackle anyone.
Can’t restrain anyone.
Can’t…
Can’t…
Can’t…

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:09 AM

No – take a moment to step back and think about this. You are even contradicting yourself! You made the case earlier that the captive was going to harm herself if she ran into the road…. and that it was better to taser her than to let that happen.

So even you see that there is a sliding scale of what is acceptable – you think that it’s better to shoot someone with a taser (do you understand what that does? That’s deadly stuff?) rather than for them to run in front of cars.

Who said they cannot restrain or tackle anyone? Are you even reading or comprehending what we are writing? It’s different to restrain, grab, hit, trip, etc… than to TAZE someone – he did SHOOT HER. Not with a bullet but with a stunning device. You need to read up on tasers and understand the severity.

The punishment/action did not fit the crime. Just think about it a little bit and understand what is being said is not meant to get those who harm others off of the hook but is intended to explain that there is more than the extreme of letting someone walk free and shooting someone in the head… Responsibility & power is a tough thing and many police have no idea and proper training to understand how little the option of taking someone’s life or risking their serious injury should be employed.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Exit question: If he was afraid she’d run into traffic on the highway, how come he didn’t chase her to the edge of the highway and then, if he still couldn’t catch her, zap her there?

Exit, Exit Question: Couldn’t she have found someplace soft to fall after losing voluntary control of her muscles?

Exit, Exit, Exit Question: Doesn’t this save taxpayer money for her prosecution, sentencing & incarceration? (I guess not, because taxpayer money may still be involved defending the police officer in a civil lawsuit…)

Exit, Exit, Exit, Exit Question: Why did the guys in The Hangover not suffer any after effects of taser-related trauma? (Especially that ‘Fat Jesus’ dude.)

Danny on February 22, 2012 at 2:23 AM

He didn’t shoot her.
sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:09 AM

What idiocy. What mental incompetence. He DID SHOOT her. He didn’t shoot her with copper and lead, which sometimes kills and sometimes doesn’t; but usually incapacitates.

He shot needles and wires with hundreds of thousands of volts, which sometimes kills and sometimes doesn’t; but usually incapacitates.

He didn’t pull a trigger? He DID shoot her, fool.

What he didn’t do was outrun her — because he HAD A TASER. And he shot her with it. And she’s nearly dead now. Because he didn’t restrain her properly in the first place.

___

And according to Shurrukin she was playing with fire and deserves what she gets. I hope it doesn’t happen to you the way you so easily accept it happening to her.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Her medical bills ought to come out of that too-fat cop’s pension.

rayra on February 22, 2012 at 2:29 AM

Restraint of lethal force is a virtue not a vice when it comes to someone’s life.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Unless, of course, you like hob-booted self-righteous unaccountable authoritarian merciless enforcers.

This is what Shurrukin and the others don’t get: There is no right to punish beyond the scope of the offense. These callous mankind-hating culprits who promote, “you step over the line, you deserve your fate for being so stupid” will deservedly get that fate themselves, except for the mercy of God.

So true and the not so funny aspect of it is (and those who are so blind to the danger of extreme reactions to non-threatening situations will never see this coming until it is too late) Each person draws their own line in the sand and you might step over it without even knowing it… For one police person you not putting your hands on the steering wheel immediately means shoot… etc…

And rest assured that their internal investigation will find them justified or find that an imaginary action was seen to justify the police’s action. It’s good to be the one writing the reports and ‘loosing the dashboard tapes and audio on accident…”

Don’t misunderstand me – Police are not necessarily evil people but just like everyone who is GIVEN POWER BY THE CITIZENS… there needs to be a strict understanding of proper responses to thousands of situations and to understand that extremes and lethal force are rarely necessary.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:29 AM

You made the case earlier that the captive was going to harm herself if she ran into the road…. and that it was better to taser her than to let that happen.

I have very little concern for her welfare. My concern was for the people in the vehicles that she hit in her druggie stupor. My concern was for those on that highway who might swerve to avoid her idiot antics as she ran into traffic and what might happen to THEM.

Who said they cannot restrain or tackle anyone?

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:23 AM

You would when she cracked her head open and died. You would be demanding to know why such a heavy guy tackled her when he HAD A NON-LETHAL INSTRUMENT HE COULD HAVE USED. The tears would flow and you would be telling us how sad it is that we are fine with physical assault when tasers exist for just such an incident.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Normally I give the cops the benefit if the doubt but in this case.. HE WAS TWO FREAKIN’ STEP BEHIND HER!!! The family of this woman who is now brain dead is going to get MILLIONS… and rightly so.

Yakko77 on February 22, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Exit, Exit, Exit Question: Doesn’t this save taxpayer money for her prosecution, sentencing & incarceration? (I guess not, because taxpayer money may still be involved defending the police officer in a civil lawsuit…)

Who do you think is going to end up picking up the hospital tab and the big payout in the lawsuit?

Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

Dack Thrombosis on February 22, 2012 at 2:34 AM

He tazed her and she cracked her fool head open when she fell. If guys like you were in charge the cops would sit by and do nothing because any action on their part is potentially lethal. Can’t chase any escaping suspects in a vehicle.
Can’t taze anyone.
Can’t tackle anyone.
Can’t restrain anyone.
Can’t…
Can’t…
Can’t…

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:09 AM

I have been a cop for almost 30 years. I was a cop for a long time before Tasers came around and never have liked them. Back then all we had was batons and Mace. Tasers are OK if someone is already on the ground and fighting but the idea of causing someone to free fall and not have the ability to break that fall is irresponsible. Most departments now have policies strongly discouraging the deployment of the device on a person running away for this reason. Officers these days are just too dependent on them. All he had to do was catch up to her and give her a shove. Tackling tends to injure both parties. She would have gotten a little road rash but being ‘cuffed in front she would have at least had a chance to protect her head. Excessive? No. Stupid? Yes. Liable? Yes.

sgtstogie on February 21, 2012 at 11:52 PM

Enough of the moral equivocating and Obama-like straw men, sharrukin

This is someone in the profession stating how to handle the situation and pointing out the problems the Tasers are creating.

If you are so confident of your position, reply to his post and tell him how wrong he is.

Demonstrate for us the courage of your convictions.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Can’t restrain anyone.
Can’t…
Can’t…
Can’t…

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:09 AM

That’s my chief argument for the cops laziness and incompetence. He was SUPPOSED to restrain her. But you say he wasn’t allowed to restrain her? You’re saying whatever comes to the top of your head because it sounds good, aren’t you?

See, I have crazy dope-smoking friends, too. And they don’t make sense, either. Form over substance, while acceptable for grade-B movies, is not a good strategy for the written word.

And you, my friend, have just dropped off the edge.

“Can’t restrain anyone”, he says. Sheesh.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:40 AM

If you are so confident of your position, reply to his post and tell him how wrong he is.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 2:35 AM

You first tough guy!

I’ve seen a lot of opinions here, but I can speak from experience since I’ve done this type of work for twenty years.

Here is the reality:

1. The woman chose to take drugs.

2. The woman chose to drive

3. The woman chose to attempt to flee more than once (she got caught the first time)

4. She ran, instead of complying. Citizen compliance is required for the system to work. You do something wrong, we arrest you, you go to jail and then go to court. Due process. If you run, you break the agreement between the police and the society. Then bad things start happening.

5. Tasers are encouraged. Why? Because in the old days, back when I first started, we had only clubs and flashlights to use to subdue bad guys (violent or not so violent- uninformed statement from one poster. What qualifies as violent? Jeezz.). However, after ending up splitting skulls and worse, the society demanded we find another way, so we came up with CS gas(tear gas). That worked okay for some. Then we went to PR24s and then ASPs as impact weapons, developed a complicated “use of force continuum” policy. Then we found OC gas, or pepper spray, and that worked- sometimes.

Finally we came upon the Taser, the answer to the problem of having to thump, gas, spray and manhandle citizens who refuse to comply with the agreement made between society and the police. Tasers are safe. Safer than a Kel-light or lead sap to the side of the noggin. Safer than having CS gas sprayed on you, or OC gas. Safer to everybody involved.

6. However, and this is the big one, Life is risk. Life is imperfect. People die. People get hurt. Usually, if you dig down enough you’ll find the idiot that got hurt somehow culpable. Officers do not get up in the morning looking to end their day with a brain dead drug addict on their hands. Stupid and certainly paperwork heavy.

7. She could have avoided this fate at any point in her past. She did not. To lay the outcome on a Taser hit by a police officer trying to stop her is a silly, foolish and frankly lazy way to approach the issue.

I never enjoyed or looked forward to laying hands on anyone. But I had to because frankly the world is filled with idiots, dopers and bad guys. The same that you ask us to deal with so you all don’t have to. The vast, vast majority end up in good shape and in court where the system does what it does. Only a few get jacked up or injured or worse but it happens.

You want to complain about American law enforcement. Try watching some Russian or Eastern European or Asian police in action. You’ll be thankful we take as much as we do and manage to maintain our professionalism.

archer52 on February 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:41 AM

“Can’t restrain anyone”, he says. Sheesh.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:40 AM

You would snivel about that too if he had done it.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:42 AM

The woman was hopped up on drugs. She left the scene of TWO accidents, which means she CAUSED them.

She brought it on herself.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I tell you what, if I were an officer and I had that woman in custody with all that baggage and her wiggling out of bracelets, running away, etc., I would want to incapacitate her too.

The results were not particularly predictable – it was accidental, but if she were obeying the law, it never would have happened.

It’s ridiculous to blame the officer in my opinion in this case. I hate drugs. They screw people up so bad and cause so much pain and broken relationships, they damage society, and destroy lives.

Drugs suck.

patriotmom1776 on February 22, 2012 at 2:45 AM

You made the case earlier that the captive was going to harm herself if she ran into the road…. and that it was better to taser her than to let that happen.

I have very little concern for her welfare. My concern was for the people in the vehicles that she hit in her druggie stupor. My concern was for those on that highway who might swerve to avoid her idiot antics as she ran into traffic and what might happen to THEM.

Who said they cannot restrain or tackle anyone?

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:23 AM

You would when she cracked her head open and died. You would be demanding to know why such a heavy guy tackled her when he HAD A NON-LETHAL INSTRUMENT HE COULD HAVE USED. The tears would flow and you would be telling us how sad it is that we are fine with physical assault when tasers exist for just such an incident.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:30 AM

And I DO CARE about her welfare – you are taking this situation out of context! Did you actually read the whole story of what happened? She was not in the act of hit and running when the guy tased her! She was in the custody of a police officer with HANDCUFFS ON with HER BACK TO HIM a few feet away from him!

That is unacceptable to use this level of force on a WOMAN who is handcuffed, back turned to you NON-LETHAL, NON-threatening situation of one’s life, health, or anything else! Tasers ARE NOT a non-lethal option.

The police individual did indeed have a non-lethal option – it was first to properly restrain the captive. Secondly it was his own two hands and muscles. Feet away I repeat… and instead of grabbing the woman…. remember this is a handcuffed woman with her back to him… he decides to take the equivalent of punching her with the utmost force in the back of the head…

You assume that the captive would run into the highway what a fake argument – you don’t know that at all – you better hope the next time you encounter a police officer that they don’t assume that you might harm them and they proceed to taser or shoot you…. assumptions are stupid and not worth taking a taser to a handcuffed, unarmed, non-threatening person.

No… if he had tackled her/shoved her, tripped her and this had happened – still sad of course but not a grievous error.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:46 AM

“Can’t restrain anyone”, he says. Sheesh.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:40 AM
You would snivel about that too if he had done it.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:42 AM

You are saying that I would have condemned the cop for handcuffing her to a chair. How old are you? You’re speaking like a whelp. I dare say I have seen things you can’t even imagine.

And you STILL won’t take PolAgnostic up on his challenge to debate sgtstogie. You just cut and paste someone else’s post.

You’re twelve, aren’t you?

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:51 AM

Hindsight is 20/20, but I tell you what, if I were an officer and I had that woman in custody with all that baggage and her wiggling out of bracelets, running away, etc., I would want to incapacitate her too.

patriotmom1776 on February 22, 2012 at 2:45 AM

But you’re not a cop. That’s why handcuffing an arrestee doesn’t even occur to you, or Shurrukin.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 2:53 AM

you better hope the next time you encounter a police officer that they don’t assume that you might harm them and they proceed to taser or shoot you

If I had just slammed into two separate vehicles, was juiced on drugs and then made a run for it then I would deserve getting maced or tazed.

No… if he had tackled her/shoved her, tripped her and this had happened – still sad of course but not a grievous error.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:46 AM

I don’t believe you.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:54 AM

The woman was hopped up on drugs. She left the scene of TWO accidents, which means she CAUSED them.

She brought it on herself.

Hindsight is 20/20, but I tell you what, if I were an officer and I had that woman in custody with all that baggage and her wiggling out of bracelets, running away, etc., I would want to incapacitate her too.

The results were not particularly predictable – it was accidental, but if she were obeying the law, it never would have happened.

It’s ridiculous to blame the officer in my opinion in this case.
I hate drugs. They screw people up so bad and cause so much pain and broken relationships, they damage society, and destroy lives.

Drugs suck.

patriotmom1776 on February 22, 2012 at 2:45 AM

Patriotmom – with due respect – you do not have the ability (nor do I or does anyone else without acute knowledge of the levels and that individual’s reaction to drugs) to assume that drugs were the reason for the accidents, nor the running away (the accindent were minor from what I have read?)

That has nothing – absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the officer did not properly restrain the prisoner and chose to shoot a woman in the back, who was handcuffed with a potentially lethal taser – have you ever fallen and hit your head on concrete while running? – instead of grabbing her or engaging another option.

Your hatred of drugs is spot on I am sure (hopefully you apply this to alcohol and caffeine across the board) but separate that out from the actions that a person with power over a captive took that caused this person serious damage and to be in a coma. Actions matter and stupid choices in response to non-threatening actions of a captive who is handcuffed have most likely cost this woman her life.

People can overcome drugs… this woman may never have that chance because of a lazy choice by a police office.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:55 AM

No… if he had tackled her/shoved her, tripped her and this had happened – still sad of course but not a grievous error.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:46 AM

I don’t believe you.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:54 AM

Sharrukin – you are starting to worry me – this is not a conversation we are having here – this is turning into a well I don’t like what you are saying so nanna nanna boo boo, I don’t like you and I don’t believe you circular idiocy thing – which I am not interested in.

I sincerely hope that you sleep on it and re-read what you have written and re-watch the video and see why this is a big deal to take such a extreme action to an unarmed, non-threatening, handcuffed woman.

Enjoy your evening.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 3:00 AM

I don’t believe you.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:54 AM

Gee, sharrukin completely excuses a grievous abuse of power by a jackbooted authority figure?!

Allow me to put on my shocked face!

Good Solid B-Plus on February 22, 2012 at 3:02 AM

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Lazy? Sure. Can’t argue there. And I’d add: poorly competent.

But caffeine? Dude! I like caffeine.

Now when I get into a fender bender and the officer smells coffee on my breath, I’m a dead man. Rethink it, please.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 3:05 AM

You would when she cracked her head open and died.
sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:30 AM

No, we wouldn’t. This is a bad argument, sharrukin.

“If he had pacified her with a lollipop and she choked on it and died, you’d want that cop’s badge for excessive use of force! Now we can’t even give candy to criminals?! When will it end?!”

Good Solid B-Plus on February 22, 2012 at 3:07 AM

Lazy? Sure. Can’t argue there. And I’d add: poorly competent.

But caffeine? Dude! I like caffeine.

Now when I get into a fender bender and the officer smells coffee on my breath, I’m a dead man. Rethink it, please.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Was just looking to get a rise out of someone with the caffeine comment =) I mostly avoid caffeine but I would not put that on the level as serious mind-altering drugs (although there are a few folks that literally shake after a few coffees and get twitchy!)

I find it interesting that so many ‘conservatives’ absolutely claim hatred of those evil ‘drugs’ and then go and drink their beer or wine or favorite other alcoholic drink as if alcohol is not a significant cause of deaths, poor decision making, accidents and harm to many people… just because the alcohol lobby is super good at what they do doesn’t make it better than any other drug… or eliminate it’s consequences..

Off topic heh – but since patriot mom went all hatred of drugs instead of focusing on what the actual action was that put the gal in the coma….

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 3:12 AM

The suspect was arrested for leaving the scene of two traffic accidents; when they caught her, she had a suspended license and was high on cocaine and oxycodone.

There, folks, is the problem… with mixing a CNS stimulant & a CNS depressant… She was confused about her drug(s) of choice…

Had she – or for that matter, the cop – been smoking weed, none of this would have happened.

Hell, he could have left a trail of nachos into the police station which she would have followed… problem averted.

Danny on February 22, 2012 at 3:12 AM

She was putting the public in danger by getting high on illegal drugs and driving a deadly weapon around. She didn’t deserve to die, but she also doesn’t deserve to be able to harm the cop for doing his job.

scotash on February 22, 2012 at 3:15 AM

I was just trying to lighten the conversation. But the truth is that I’ve come to love a good double cup of espresso. When coffee goes up, I’ll have to cut down.

Or else I’ll quit driving and spend the gas money on the dark drug.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 3:17 AM

The lemming-like approach to police are good and lawbreakers are bad is so stupid. Laws are nothing more than whatever the current or past politicians or appointed czar/EPA advisor etc… decrees. Shoot in one place you can get jail time for having a light the wrong color on your bicycle…

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 1:56 AM

I know, right? It’s astounding that the exact same people who pepper other topics with pithy little lines like “Government is the problem!” and “The Obama Administration is a nest of tyranny!” will then turn around and say “Look, citizen, just do everything the nice police man tells you no matter what!”

Good Solid B-Plus on February 22, 2012 at 3:18 AM

And she doesn’t deserve to be brain dead for running out of a police station.

Danny on February 22, 2012 at 3:12 AM

You a Ron Paul guy? Or just a Dorito-holic.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 AM

She was putting the public in danger by getting high on illegal drugs and driving a deadly weapon around. She didn’t deserve to die, but she also doesn’t deserve to be able to harm the cop for doing his job.

scotash on February 22, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Wait – what part of the story did I miss? She attacked the police officer and threatened him with harm while she was running away with handcuffs on? I must have missed that in the video? That never came up in the three articles on this that I watched? Can you provide a link to back that claim up that she tried to physically harm the police officer?

Wasn’t the cop’s job to restrain the suspect the first & second time around? And he failed to do so? So instead it’s okay to shoot the unarmed, handcuffed woman in the back from a few feet away instead of grabbing her? The person with the power and the ability to use lethal force needs to use restraint when possible (i.e. when there is no threat to the police office as appears to be the case here) rather than shooting an unarmed woman in handcuffs in the back from a few feet away… any decent person would be embarrassed and ashamed of that action.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 3:22 AM

Wait – what part of the story did I miss? She attacked the police officer and threatened him with harm while she was running away with handcuffs on?

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 3:22 AM

The cop was protecting you from getting killed by her driving while doped up, or her running into the road making a car swerve and then killing you, yes, all while doped up.

Don’t run from cops. If you do, expect consequences. Sad, and yes, she didn’t deserve to die. But that’s what happens when people do really stupid things. Cause and effect.

scotash on February 22, 2012 at 3:27 AM

Exit, Exit, Exit Question: Doesn’t this save taxpayer money for her prosecution, sentencing & incarceration? (I guess not, because taxpayer money may still be involved defending the police officer in a civil lawsuit…)

Who do you think is going to end up picking up the hospital tab and the big payout in the lawsuit?

Joe and Jane Taxpayer.

Dack Thrombosis on February 22, 2012 at 2:34 AM

Sarcasm… That’s why I added the ‘Exit’ x3 before Question.

Danny on February 22, 2012 at 3:27 AM

Wait – what part of the story did I miss? She attacked the police officer and threatened him with harm while she was running away with handcuffs on?

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 3:22 AM

The cop was protecting you from getting killed by her driving while doped up, or her running into the road making a car swerve and then killing you, yes, all while doped up.

Don’t run from cops. If you do, expect consequences. Sad, and yes, she didn’t deserve to die. But that’s what happens when people do really stupid things. Cause and effect.

No, the police officer failed to prevent anything – police do what police always do – they come in after the fact and try to enforce the existing laws and/or address a situation as best they can.

The means to the end of stopping the gal are the issue – no one knows that she was going to run into a busy highway – that is at best speculation and at worst a pathetic attempt to justify the lethal behavior of the police officer when other options were available (see preferred action number 1… move your rear and grab her…)

Of course the person running away is responsible for making a stupid decision to do so in this instance (by the way when the next law passed outlaws something that you find that you cannot morally agree not to do… running away from the cops isn’t going to seme like a no brainer anymore…) But the cause was laziness on the police officer’s part in securing the captive twice and then the lazy and definitely more lethal option than grabbing the gal was chosen.

Laziness begets more laziness and ends in a coma this time… sad indeed.

glidingone on February 22, 2012 at 3:35 AM

Romney’s now saying cutting taxes aren’t enough; that we need to create a good pro-business environment, too. What he means by this, may be just so much more ObamaCare-style government intrusion.

The Obama course, as it is going now, has it’s destination in despotism.

Police, as absolutley necessary as they are, will follow orders. When they are protected from punishment for wrong-doing, when bureaucracies write the rules of engagement and of proper conduct toward witnesses and suspects, the police will be giving the conscienceless electric shocks to innocents just as those college students did in the experiments decades ago, all under the imprimatur of the accepted authority.

I’ve just seen the beginning of it in my own lifetime. “But what did I do wrong? The book says to shock!”

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 3:37 AM

Cause and effect.

scotash on February 22, 2012 at 3:27 AM

Cause and effect would be if the cop had no brains, no judgment, and no authority to modify his own behavior.

I can’t believe anyone on this board thinks he will never have a cop looking at him as if he’s a perp; a gun in one hand, a taser in the other. When you are tased, and break your head open on the pavement, you lose your right to face your accuser. And you retain your right to remain silent.

All your courts of law and your proper procedure and current justifications of police use of occasionally lethal force will no longer apply to you.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 3:45 AM

And she doesn’t deserve to be brain dead for running out of a police station.

Danny on February 22, 2012 at 3:12 AM

You a Ron Paul guy? Or just a Dorito-holic.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 3:21 AM

Not a Ron Paul guy… Maybe… I dunno. At least not with much of his foreign policy views. (I do like some Doritos, particularly Sweet & Spicy and Buffalo Ranch…)

But if you use??? You should assume the responsibility of the subsequent events, actions, positions you put yourself into. Even if you are tasered by a cop standing closely behind you. (Now let’s not go off the deep end postulating how she may have become high against her will…)

As ‘William Munny’ once said, “Deservin’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

It is what it is.

If she hadn’t been high, she would not have beeen behaving erratically.

If she wasn’t behaving erratically, she wouldn’t have been involved in those hit ‘n’ runs.

She wouldn’t have been arrested.

She wouldn’t have been tasered by a cop standing close behind her resulting in a swan dive into the asphalt. (She’s hardly the 1st person who was tasered not standing on a Tempurpedic mattress. Keep in mind, it doesn’t matter if he was standing 1 foot away, or 10 feet away – she gets the same # of Volts.)

Nasty, smelly, crappy, evil event that it is.

I’m just saying, if she’d been smoking weed, she may have only had the ‘munchies’, having a more benign outcome.

Danny on February 22, 2012 at 3:47 AM

I’ve seen a lot of opinions here, but I can speak from experience since I’ve done this type of work for twenty years.

Here is the reality:

1. The woman chose to take drugs.

2. The woman chose to drive

3. The woman chose to attempt to flee more than once (she got caught the first time)

4. She ran, instead of complying. Citizen compliance is required for the system to work. You do something wrong, we arrest you, you go to jail and then go to court. Due process. If you run, you break the agreement between the police and the society. Then bad things start happening.

5. Tasers are encouraged. Why? Because in the old days, back when I first started, we had only clubs and flashlights to use to subdue bad guys (violent or not so violent- uninformed statement from one poster. What qualifies as violent? Jeezz.). However, after ending up splitting skulls and worse, the society demanded we find another way, so we came up with CS gas(tear gas). That worked okay for some. Then we went to PR24s and then ASPs as impact weapons, developed a complicated “use of force continuum” policy. Then we found OC gas, or pepper spray, and that worked- sometimes.

Finally we came upon the Taser, the answer to the problem of having to thump, gas, spray and manhandle citizens who refuse to comply with the agreement made between society and the police. Tasers are safe. Safer than a Kel-light or lead sap to the side of the noggin. Safer than having CS gas sprayed on you, or OC gas. Safer to everybody involved.

6. However, and this is the big one, Life is risk. Life is imperfect. People die. People get hurt. Usually, if you dig down enough you’ll find the idiot that got hurt somehow culpable. Officers do not get up in the morning looking to end their day with a brain dead drug addict on their hands. Stupid and certainly paperwork heavy.

7. She could have avoided this fate at any point in her past. She did not. To lay the outcome on a Taser hit by a police officer trying to stop her is a silly, foolish and frankly lazy way to approach the issue.

I never enjoyed or looked forward to laying hands on anyone. But I had to because frankly the world is filled with idiots, dopers and bad guys. The same that you ask us to deal with so you all don’t have to. The vast, vast majority end up in good shape and in court where the system does what it does. Only a few get jacked up or injured or worse but it happens.

You want to complain about American law enforcement. Try watching some Russian or Eastern European or Asian police in action. You’ll be thankful we take as much as we do and manage to maintain our professionalism.

archer52 on February 21, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I’ve got a number of questions with regard to your statements. To save space, I’ll raise them based on your numbering.

1) Her taking drugs is not an renunciation of her rights or a relaxation of a police officer’s duty. It does justify geater care on the officer’s part with regard to her behavior and her likelihood to comply with his directions. Does your police force have a lower expectation of officer interaction when dealing with known or suspected drug users?

2) DUI/OWI are a grievous problem in this country and I have a lot of anger with lax laws and enforcement policies, not the least of which is because law enforcement personnel deal with the worst aspects of it on a daily basis. I’ve done a ride along and was very proud of the professionalism our local sheriffs display in dealing with this epidemic. My question is, in this case, how does the woman choosing to drive relate to this specific incident other than being the basis for her arrest?

3) The woman removed the handcuffs that were not properly used. Wouldn’t this have made any officer more likely to place the handcuffs on her arms behind her back from that point forward?

4) Her attempt to run does not remove the requirement of due process. Her failure to comply is another offense and does increase risk she is likely to incur bad things happening. Do you feel an attempt to flee abrogates due process and removes the consequences of liability from a police officer?

5) Does your department’s official policy state that Tasers are safe? Or are they described as a less lethal use of force?

6) On this one, I am generally in agreement with you.

7) One of the people who died when one of our local officers used his Taser was someone with a history of mental problems that resulted in diminished capacity. I have addicts in my family and have little sympathy for their “issues”. On the other hand, while I view this situation as becoming far more fluid once the woman stepped into the parking lot – I would still say the officer’s failure to contain the suspect properly per department policy led him to escalate the use of force unnecessarily. My reasoning for that statement is the woman was of diminished capacity and while she would have continued to flee she was unlikely to escape since she was in the immediate area of the police station.

I don’t complain about American law enforcement. I am amazed at the professionalism the police in this country display every day. I agree that your average civilian has little insight into how difficult what you do and have to put up with on a daily basis.

My questions are asked with the greatest of deference because a ride along has only provided me with a brief glimpse of the life you and your fellow officers endure. Thank you for your service.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 4:01 AM

You first tough guy!

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 2:41 AM

Done. Your up.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 4:07 AM

She wouldn’t have been arrested.
She wouldn’t have been tasered by a cop…
Danny on February 22, 2012 at 3:47 AM

A LOT happened between being arrested and being tasered. And the cop was in total control during all that time.

You know, kids do do crazy things. In my view, 19-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to drive, let alone drink, or vote.

Look, for today’s headline, a 14-year-old kid died of alcohol and HELIUM for gosh sakes. Talk about “high”. Kids don’t know what they’re doing. They know what they’re told and some have to learn the hard way.

People like Shurrukin will say that because she died, she deserved it. Because it was a crazy experimentalism, she won a darwin award. He’ll say that because she did helium at 14, she was bound to do oxycodone at 19. And because she did oxycodone at 19, she was a druggie. And because she was a druggie, she was already brain-dead. And because she was already brain dead, any cop that kills her is just sweeping up the trash.

What’s really upsetting is not only that people think they can tell the future, but that they think that people are intrinsically worthless, and only of value if they live up to a particular standard; as if, once you take oxycodone, or whatever drug they happen to dislike that day, you might as well be thumped on the head and dumped in the river.

At what time did she become worthless, or worthy of death? With the cocaine? With the oxy? With the repeated abuse? With the first car crash? With the second? When she ran?

My thinking is that if you have a drugged out person and then tell him to sit in a chair while you fill out his jail ticket, you are expecting him to run, and you are just waiting for a moving target. And if you aren’t expecting it, you’re guilty of negligence and it’s manslaughter; and then you’re no different than the girl driving under the influence.

Except that she didn’t kill anyone.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 4:36 AM

What’s really upsetting is not only that people think they can tell the future, but that they think that people are intrinsically worthless, and only of value if they live up to a particular standard; as if, once you take oxycodone, or whatever drug they happen to dislike that day, you might as well be thumped on the head and dumped in the river.

And it’s just as upsetting to see all the armchair quarterbacks coming out, after the fact, making proclamations based on a snippet of video and third party information. When, in fact, none of us were there.

Were some mistakes made during the processing of her arrest? From what information has been made available, it sounds like the answer to that is “yes”. However, IMOHO, it appears to be a horrible accident that came about to a series of bad events. Unfortunately society has been conditioned to find an individual to blame for every accident that happens.

For those looking to ‘blame’ someone, there is plenty of blame to go around. Did the police not handle the situation ideally? Yes. However, the woman arrested also has to assume responsibility for her actions that put her in that situation to begin with.

DonCherry on February 22, 2012 at 5:00 AM

The woman was right in front of the guy and handcuffed. He could have just grabbed her. And a taser is for someone that is posing a physical threat to you. Not for someone that is running away from you.

SoulGlo on February 22, 2012 at 5:04 AM

I don’t have any sympathy for the criminal….

Am I suppose to?

Kini on February 22, 2012 at 5:09 AM

I don’t have any sympathy for the criminal….

Am I suppose to?

Kini on February 22, 2012 at 5:09 AM

Which one ?

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 5:21 AM

People like Shurrukin will say that because she died, she deserved it.

Deserves got nothin to do with it.

She died because she was an idiot.

If she stabbed a fork into her eye I would say the same thing. You want to see some sort of grand morality play here and there isn’t one.

She paid the wages of stupidity.

What’s really upsetting is not only that people think they can tell the future, but that they think that people are intrinsically worthless, and only of value if they live up to a particular standard

I think people set their own value by their own behavior. I do not hold rapists in the same regard as I do others. I have enough respect for people that I actually care how they behave. Some people are no damn good. Some people are worthy of respect and there is a difference between those two groups. You can better yourself and become worthy of respect. Should the person who manages to better themselves be held in the same regard as the one who chooses not to do so?

Yes they have to live up to a standard, and if they behave badly my respect for them drops. The worse they behave the less regard I have for them. Why is this shocking?

My thinking is that if you have a drugged out person and then tell him to sit in a chair while you fill out his jail ticket, you are expecting him to run, and you are just waiting for a moving target. And if you aren’t expecting it, you’re guilty of negligence and it’s manslaughter; and then you’re no different than the girl driving under the influence.

So the person who is breaking the law, on drugs, having destroyed the property and threatened the lives of others by her reckless behavior is absolved of responsibility. The guy who is trying to enforce the law and prevent her from doing these things to others is the one who must assume the mantle of responsibility she refused because he didn’t tie her down to a chair?

Except that she didn’t kill anyone.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 4:36 AM

So we need an innocent person dead and cold on the ground before you will consider the idea that she needed to be stopped?

What if she had killed someone when she hit those two vehicles? Would that justify what the cop did or not?

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 5:24 AM

True story in Phoenix, AZ.
Cop chases a perp in a car; high-speed pursuit. Another cop lays down spike-strips to stop perp. Perp avoids spike-strips but, “Professional Police Officer” driving in broad daylight runs over officer who laid spike-strips down. Perp charged with murder for making the “Professional Police Officer” run over a fellow officer in broad daylight. Gee, I wonder if the “Professional Police Officer”; was invited to the dead cops funeral. Mr. Pro Cop was declared justified in running over a fellow officer in broad daylight because he was ‘in pursuit’. This is truly sickening today.

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM

DonCherry on February 22, 2012 at 5:00 AM

With all respect, she is probably beyond assuming any repsonsibility for anything ever again.

It’s sad to kill (or worse, to nearly kill) an unarmed 19-year-old young woman.

Either the policeman himself, or the department that trained and armed him, or the whole law enforcement culture, that is responsible for her present condition.

She wasn’t given the chance to kill herself with drugs. She was as far as we know a non-violent offender. And she is now proabaly beyond any form of rehabilitation.

The officer tased her thinking it would do nothing more than allow him to bring her back into the building. He was terribly wrong. And his training was probably insufficient or wrong. And his department culture and practice was probably deficient or wrong.

And the use of tasers as a matter of general convenience is wrong. This scene was preventable, but I’m sure we will see more similar death and disability of non-violent offenders due to tasers in the future.

Nothing will change the fact that the officer will live the rest of his life knowing what he inadvertantly did.

What bothers me is the way some people say she was already dead anyway because she was a drug user. She was only 19 years old. She didn’t do anything deserving of this fate at a cop’s hand. But some cruder people scoff that she was a worthless lump of drugged-out flesh and it’s good that she’s gone.

Truly disgusting.

flicker on February 22, 2012 at 5:43 AM

True story in Phoenix, AZ.
Cop chases a perp in a car; high-speed pursuit. Another cop lays down spike-strips to stop perp. Perp avoids spike-strips but, “Professional Police Officer” driving in broad daylight runs over officer who laid spike-strips down. Perp charged with murder for making the “Professional Police Officer” run over a fellow officer in broad daylight. Gee, I wonder if the “Professional Police Officer”; was invited to the dead cops funeral. Mr. Pro Cop was declared justified in running over a fellow officer in broad daylight because he was ‘in pursuit’. This is truly sickening today.

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM

Is this your fugitive hero?

Arizona court records show Baker has had several run-ins with the law in the past decade, including vehicle theft, burglary, forgery and theft charges. She served most of a three-year prison term for combined cases from Maricopa and Yavapai counties and was released in September 2007, according to a corrections department spokesman.

Officer Marano, 28 years old and a father of four daughters, was a three-and-a-half-year DPS veteran when he was killed on December 17, 2009, in the aftermath of a freeway pursuit that took place while Baker was high on drugs. A Navy veteran, Marano was a model officer during his time with DPS, as well as a good friend, a valued colleague and a loving husband and father.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 5:46 AM

It had been a while between anti-cop (I mean anti-gov’t authority) threads so I understand the pent up frustration from the usual suspects (and some new ones) in regards to law enforcement. I’m gonna be kind and venture that AP was attempting to perform a public service by posting this so that frustration didn’t manifest physically. It still strikes me as odd each time though where an instance of unfortunate happenstance brought on by reckless and criminal behavior becomes the springboard for how all cops are jackbooted thugs with no conscience. Her reckless, criminal behavior got someone seriously injured. It just happened to be her.

And for those who insist on claiming Tasers are deadly weapons, stop, you’re embarrassing yourselves.

ajsleepy on February 22, 2012 at 5:55 AM

And for those who insist on claiming Tasers are deadly weapons, stop, you’re embarrassing yourselves.

ajsleepy on February 22, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Yeah, it’s kind of ridiculous. You’d think from some of these hysterical comments that someone had been killed or left brain-dead or something.

RINO in Name Only on February 22, 2012 at 6:01 AM

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 5:31 AM

Under the felony murder laws of most states, she is guilty under those circumstances. When you set out to commit a felony, you assume responsibility for any death which occurs in the course of the crime. Even if you didn’t mean it. Even if you didn’t physically touch the victim. Even if the person who died was your partner in crime.

Because engaging in the felony in the first place is what sets the chain of events in motion; those people would be alive if you had not chosen to commit a felony.

Odd how those who seem willing to forgive every crime of the criminals expect perfection from police. Cops aren’t perfect, and when the shi’ite is going down in real time, mistakes happen all the time. Whose fault is it? 99.999% of the time, under the law and in reality, it is the criminal who initiated the sequence of events.

Despite the whining a few posts back, the department in this case has a taser policy which includes fleeing suspects, even if cuffed in some circumstances. If she had run into traffic and caused a fatal pile-up, you bleeding hearts would be blaming the cop for NOT tasing her and stopping her flight.

Adjoran on February 22, 2012 at 6:04 AM

And for those who insist on claiming Tasers are deadly weapons, stop, you’re embarrassing yourselves.

ajsleepy on February 22, 2012 at 5:55 AM

Yeah, it’s kind of ridiculous. You’d think from some of these hysterical comments that someone had been killed or left brain-dead or something.

RINO in Name Only on February 22, 2012 at 6:01 AM

http://omgfactsofficial.tumblr.com/post/759923957/teddy-bears-and-other-toys-kill-more-people-than

In the last 89 years 82 Americans have been killed by bears. Compare that to the 22 deaths caused by toys like teddy bears EVERY YEAR.

Children are at most risk from death from their toys. For instance, small parts in a teddy bear can be a choking hazard (like its eyes). Also, children can trip on teddy bears and fall down a flight of stairs or hit their head on a sharp corner of a table.

Also, a teddy bear once killed 2,500 fish! A teddy bear fell into a pool at a trout hatchery, clogging the pipes. The fish all suffocated and died.

sharrukin on February 22, 2012 at 6:09 AM

So RINO, I suppose you believe water is a deadly weapon? I mean if you slip on it and smack your head on the ground you could be brain damaged. Hey, you can drown in water all by itself!

I mean, oh man, you got me…

ajsleepy on February 22, 2012 at 6:13 AM

This is a small excerpt from the compilation/diatribe entitled “BAD AMERICAN”, by an unknown author.
.

“I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you’re running from them after they tell you to stop.

If you can’t understand the word ‘freeze’ or ‘stop’ in English, see the previous line.”

.
I think it fits here.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:13 AM

Darwinism via Youtube: People illegally driving while high on COCAINE and OXYCODONE Put themselves and everyone on the road in Grave peril. The headline here could just as easily be “10 Children and 2 Firefighters Burned Alive in Tragic Accident Caused by Repeat Drug Offender”.

1. If you are driving on Cocaine and Oxy, somebody, somehow, someway is going to get Serioisly Injured, its not a question of ‘if’, only a question of ‘when’, and in all liklihood is going to be You.

2. Nothing good ever happened to anyone, ever, who once cuffed and arrested attempted to evade the Police.

3. There is no Constitutional right to be a complete friggin moron.

4. The officer in the video should be given a
Medal for doing his JOB which includes the apprehension of a fleeing FELON who is a danger to themselves and third parties.

5. The escapee should be billed by the state for the full costs of the taser charge, and the hazmat cleanup, if any, at the scene of the fall.

Afterseven on February 22, 2012 at 6:33 AM

killed on December 17, 2009, in the aftermath of a freeway pursuit

I guess I expect better of an officer to ‘Avoid killing a fellow officer’. If you don’t think the police should avoid killing their own while, passing the crime to someone else, that’s your problem. It’s a sad day when folks believe ‘ALL’ police are heroes. Interestingly, most folks also believe that, most gov’t employees are incompetent. Why is it so hard to believe that cops are the same as gov’t. employees? Sharrulin; why the hero worship?

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Adjoran on February 22, 2012 at 6:04 AM

I want the cops we hire to avoid killing each other while, at the same time, blaming someone else.

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 6:42 AM

4. The officer in the video should be given a
Medal for doing his JOB which includes the apprehension of a fleeing FELON who is a danger to themselves and third parties.

5. The escapee should be billed by the state for the full costs of the taser charge, and the hazmat cleanup, if any, at the scene of the fall.

Afterseven on February 22, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Dear God, I hope you are not serious. A freaking medal for failure to secure the perp? Really ? So, his job is to be a fat Dunkin Donuts failure? I guess he got that part right.

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 6:45 AM

It’s a sad day when folks believe ‘ALL’ police are heroes. Interestingly, most folks also believe that, most gov’t employees are incompetent. Why is it so hard to believe that cops are the same as gov’t. employees? Sharrulin; why the hero worship?
Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 6:40 AM

Afterseven on February 22, 2012 at 6:33 AM

Dear God, I hope you are not serious. A freaking medal for failure to secure the perp? Really ? So, his job is to be a fat Dunkin Donuts failure? I guess he got that part right.
Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 6:45 AM

No one believes ALL police are heroes.
.
But I believe anyone who talks about police the way you have in this thread, hates all police.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:58 AM

If she could sing she could have a state funeral in New Jersay, and wall to wall media coverage of her funeral.

And when we see this type of ravaging of life by drugs….people still WANT TO LEGALIZE DRUGS because the war on it lost?

Whitney was right……..Crack is whack, and so are people that see videos like this and want to legalize drugs.

PappyD61 on February 22, 2012 at 7:03 AM

“she had a suspended license and was high on cocaine and oxycodone.”

ZAP!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

crash72 on February 22, 2012 at 7:18 AM

Meanwhile, over in California, a cop shoots a deranged guy holding a pipe bender 10 times, all the while holding back his police dog.

Can’t risk getting the puppy hit by a pipe wrench, can we?

BigAlSouth on February 22, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Welcome to obamaville!

crash72 on February 22, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Bottom line is, she was under felony arrest,she decided to take drugs, she decided to leave the scene of an accident, she decided to resist, she decided to run.
We hire and train officers to make snap decisions in hazardous and difficult situations every day. No one is perfect, evrybody makes mistakes. Fact, Cops are human, they make mistakes too.
Fact, this officer did not fire his taser to kill, only to aid in apprehension of a person arrested on felony charges. I doubt anyone wishes more than this officer that he would not have fired that taser.
Did the cop make a mistake in his judgment of the felons flight risk? Yes. Did he fail to restrain the felon properly? Yes. Was he, at his weight capable of catching the felon on foot? I doubt it. He made the decision to restrain the felon before the situation progressed further. The decision to run did not turn out so well for the felon.
Sucks to be her.

rightoption on February 22, 2012 at 7:32 AM

A jack booted thug caught on camera. people like this are necessary for places like auscwitz and the gulags to run smoothly. can’t happen without the evil like this to run them.

it also helps to have a lemming like population that’s willing to give up their freedoms for a “security” that ensures the ruling elite maintain their power.

the money paid on medical and the resulting lawsuit should come out of the lifetime defined pension and medical that these thugs get because they support the ruling elite in DC.

acyl72 on February 22, 2012 at 7:40 AM

“He could have just grabbed her!” Ever grab a fleeing stoned 19yr old who doesn’t want to get grabbed? Sure, it’s not to hard. But you can miss them, they can twist away. So, the officer grabs her, she twists away, falls and face plants becoming brain dead. Then ya’ll would be saying, “Why’d he try grabbing her! He shoulda tazed her!”

The brain damage was caused BY THE FALL. NOT THE TAZER. He could have given her a shove; that works. I’ve done it a lot on fleeing suspects. Guess what? Shoving a running person? CAUSES A FALL. Head hits ground and BAM, we’re in the same argument.

What if he missed the grab or the shove and she made it in traffic only to get hit by a car? “THat murderous cop should be castrated!!!! WHy didn’t he taze her and keep her from traffic!!!”

What if he grabbed her, she twisted and trips him, and HE ends up brain dead? “chirping crickets” No one would know or care because the ONLY time Allahpundit EVER posts a cop story is when he can feast on his intense cop hatred, or use it to club the Obama administration.

The officer made a judgement call. WE were not there, WE do not know what the conditions were, WE do not know how she was acting. And unless you’ve been in Law Enforcement, YOU do not know just how much damage can be done in a physical confrontation; just grabbing someone’s arm in a high stress situation can result in spiral fractures. In which case you’re a big bad bully fascist cop who likes to throw his weight around beating up innocent people and yadda yadda yadda. I know this will come as a GREAT shock to ya’ll, but cops are PEOPLE. Sometimes people make mistakes. Especially in a high stress situation where you have to make a split second decision. Most of ya’ll have NO CLUE what a high stress situation even is, or the physiological factors inherent in one. Most of ya’ll have never had to deal with a combative, stoned, or emotionaly disturbed subject. Yet, you think you have the knowledge to not only second guess, but to condemn others.

I swear, the comments here are more like something you’d see on dkos or huffpo.

wolfva on February 22, 2012 at 7:41 AM

acyl72 on February 22, 2012 at 7:40 A

M

Your an idiot.

rightoption on February 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM

RarestRX on February 22, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Excuse me if I’m missing something but wasn’t she already brain dead? I mean who runs out of a police station after being arrested and hand cuffed?

shep29 on February 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Should cops use it only as a nonlethal last resort against suspects who are violently resisting or should they use it to subdue suspects who are momentarily out of their control for whatever reason?

That is the question.
I was all for tazers when they first came out, but I think, like anything, people are tempted to go the past of least resistance. Tazers can be dangerous. I don’t care what anyone says, it’s an electrical charge that effects the muscles and the heart is a muscle.
The tazer was meant to be a tool for good police work. It’s making some cops lazy and is becoming a threat to the public.

I still remember that video of the cop stopping the speeder. We never see the face of the speeder in the video, but we hear is incredible angry rants as the state policeman is giving him a ticket. then the speeder rips up the ticket and throws it out onto the ground, and the patrol officer calmly either gives him another ticker for littering or warns him he could face a littering fine.
The driver is irate and out of control, but the officer remains professional and calm during the whole encounter and it all ends well. That officer, to me, was the model of professionalism. Today, I think too many cops would have drug that speeder out of his SUV and tazed him 15 times just because he was “resisting” or “out of control.”

JellyToast on February 22, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Pardon me if it has already been asked/answered, but does this police substation not have holding cells? Do they not have ANYTHING that this person could have been handcuffed to? Plumbing? Handrails? Let’s go to the root of the negligence here and start there I say.

dave_ross on February 22, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Two lessons can be distilled from these kinds of incidents: First, if you’re in trouble, you’re on your own. Second, don’t get anywhere near the police; they’ll kill you.

Now, for the LEO advocates around here, are those really the lessons you want society to internalize and act on?

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Some might say that the gene pool is better off.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 22, 2012 at 8:09 AM

I’d argue that the lawsuit will win out – The cop failed to secure a prisoner that should have been secured. He’d already had indicators that she was gonna run, and he still didn’t secure her.

Given that, his use of the Taser would have been justified, despite the fact that he may have been able to tackle her etc. – There have already been enough cases about use of force issues, and going ‘hands-on’ (even with someone like this girl) is not the preferred method – both for officer safety and prisoner safety. This is why standoff ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons are preferred, even in circumstances like this. Tackling someone leads to incidents like this one: Arrest Leaves Man in Coma

Tasers suck (I know, having been on the receiving end) but generally speaking, they don’t do lasting harm. As far as the use of force, they still are a level below hands on, because they are safer.

In my own opinion, though, I think that our society excuses people for their own behavior. The woman was in police custody, she had broken the law, she was resisting arrest and none of the cop’s actions were wrong in reapprehending her. (from his point of view at the time of the incident – which is what counts, you can’t convict someone of wrongdoing on the basis of hindsight) His mistake was in being kind to her (cuffing her in a less uncomfortable position, not tying her to the chair, etc).

The family shouldn’t be entitled to anything – she chose her actions which contributed to her injury – If the cop is going to be held accountable because he tasered her over pavement and should have anticipated that she might get hurt, she should be held accountable for running in the first place, as that was guaranteed to generate some sort of forceful response.

Cases like this are why EVERYONE gets treated like a violent criminal now. By insisting on a ‘zero defects’ mentality, we’re leaving no room for judgement calls.

RustMouse on February 22, 2012 at 8:14 AM

Tazers lack the amperage to harm the heart muscle. ALL it does is interrupt the signals to the skeletal musculature causing the muscles to clench and the person to be momentarily immobilized. Not pleasant, but much better then the old days where you’d just thwack them upside the head with a baton. AGAIN, it is the FALL and subsequent hit to the head, or the drugs in her system, that caused the brain damage.

It was NOT the intent of the officer to kill her. Had he wanted to do that, he would have shot her with his sidearm. Or simply allowed her to RUN IN TO TRAFFIC. Instead, he utilized a relatively harmless tool which, had everything gone as planned, would have rendered her temporarily immobilized and compliant. She hit her head. She died. It happens.

19 police officers have lost their lives this year alone. In 7 weeks. 170 police officers lost their lives last year. All doing the same thing, trying to keep society safe. Don’t like the laws? Complain to your congressman, they’re the ones who write ‘em. Don’t like cops? Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it. Meanwhile, the cops will STILL be doing their jobs of trying to keep YOU safe from drug dealers, cartels, terrorists, and stoned 19 year old girls who decide to drive thus jeapordising the lives of every single person in their path. Hopefully the officers will be able to stop the people without the people dying THROUGH THEIR OWN ACTIONS. But sometimes crap happens. Want perfection? Grow up, there is no such thing.

wolfva on February 22, 2012 at 8:16 AM

“He could have just grabbed her!” Ever grab a fleeing stoned 19yr old who doesn’t want to get grabbed?

It’s called martial arts.
The police are trained in effective techniques of restraint. My Judo instructor is a police detective who trains police and prison guards all over our state. He calls them “come along” techniques. She’s in freaking hand cuffs for crying out loud. I 16 year old yellow belt would have had enough training to subdue that woman without resorting to a tazer.

He could have run up behind her, reached his arms around her and held on to both elbows, closed them together and picked her up and brought her right back into the station. She maybe could have head butted him or kicked, but he’s got a lot of weight and height on her so I don’t think it would have mattered much.
But of course, if her hands had been properly restrained behind her back, it would have been even easier. He could have used the same technique, holding both her elbows behind her back.. she would not have gone anywhere.
But even watching.. heck.. he could have run in front of her and just stopped her. He didn’t even try. It’s so much more fun, though, to use the pretend phaser. It’s just like Star Trek. They use them all the time on stun and there’s never any problems.

JellyToast on February 22, 2012 at 8:18 AM

i’d like to see comments from people involved in the two wrecks she caused. you know, the real victims. at least she wont be causing anymore damage.

chasdal on February 22, 2012 at 8:24 AM

The only thing I’d hold the department accountable for (financially) is if their actions after the fact led to her current state (If they didn’t give her proper medical attention, ignored complaints of symptoms, etc)

RustMouse on February 22, 2012 at 8:24 AM

BigAlSouth on February 22, 2012 at 7:24 AM

michael vick?? is that you?

chasdal on February 22, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Judge to plaintiff’s attorney:

“Did the victim commit a series of crimes that endangered other people?”

Plaintiff’s attorney: “Yes, Your Honor.”

Judge: “Mr. Smith, the next time you need a police officer, call a plumber. Case dismissed.”

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 22, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Now, for the LEO advocates around here, are those really the lessons you want society to internalize and act on?
ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 8:08 AM

.
Reposting my 6:13 AM post:
.

This is a small excerpt from the compilation/diatribe entitled “BAD AMERICAN”, by an unknown author.
.

“I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you’re running from them after they tell you to stop.

If you can’t understand the word ‘freeze’ or ‘stop’ in English, see the previous line.”

.
I think it fits here.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:13 AM

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 8:27 AM

If I read this story right, the errors he committed in properly securing/restraining the aressted subject will come back to haunt this officer.
Failure to properly restrain with the cuffs in back of her body, then additional issues developed when she slipped out of them. this should have alerted the officer of the heightened escape risk. Then at the station, with the issues he’s already encountered witht he arrest, why was she left in an “unsecured area” where she had the ability to run off?
If she was stoned and not acting rationally (caused 2 crashes) and displayed an ability to escape, the officer should have been required to provide better security.
I’ve seen it before when an officer “was trying to be nice” and it came back to bite him or her inthe a$$. Proceedures are developed for a reason, and I’m betting that he didn’t follow them.
My rant is now complete.
Thans for lettng me spout.

ChicagoBlues on February 22, 2012 at 8:31 AM

The fact that she ran from the police in the first place, while wearing handcuffs, proves that she was already brain dead. Don’t run from the cops, it’s just that simple.

Norky on February 22, 2012 at 8:31 AM

The world is minus one cokehead dirtbag now. I don’t care. Whatever. She was probably a pain in the ass to society anyways. I don’t condone the officer being a lazy pig that chose to taze the skank rather than grabbing her, but I’m not going to shed any tears over this lowlife girl either. And her mom is just looking for a ride on the gravy train, as always in cases like this.

moonbat monitor on February 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM

“She’ll be alright. Inform Lord Vader we have a prisoner.”

Jack Squat Bupkis on February 22, 2012 at 8:39 AM

But I believe anyone who talks about police the way you have in this thread, hates all police.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:58 AM

They are empathizing with the person who was high on illegal drugs, and breaking the law. Why is that? There is a class of people who hate the police because of their own interaction with the police. Using a tazer – non lethal force does not equate to police state.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 8:45 AM

I’d argue that the lawsuit will win out – The cop failed to secure a prisoner that should have been secured. He’d already had indicators that she was gonna run, and he still didn’t secure her.

RustMouse on February 22, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I agree 100%. It should also along these lines, be noted for those saying “he didn’t have the intention to kill her” that’s all well and good, but irrelevant. Had he properly secured her, it never would have escalated to the end result we have here. Sorry, but right or wrong, “skank” of society or not, the police FAILED. The root of the problem was failure to secure. Everything that happened after that doesn’t matter. Mother wins in court.

dave_ross on February 22, 2012 at 8:46 AM

High on cocaine and oxycodone? She was already brain dead.

Next.

PorchDawg on February 22, 2012 at 8:48 AM

“She’ll be alright. Inform Lord Vader we have a prisoner.”

Jack Squat Bupkis on February 22, 2012 at 8:39 AM

I shouldn’t, but…Lol

dave_ross on February 22, 2012 at 8:48 AM

But I believe anyone who talks about police the way you have in this thread, hates all police.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 6:58 AM

And I believe anyone who would say, “I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you’re running from them after they tell you to stop” doesn’t care about liberty and our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, and is totalitarian.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7