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 4 5 6 7

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 8:45 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

So, you believe that police; and only police are good gov’t workers? What are the odds that police are special but, gov’t. workers in other areas are not? BTW, I said nothing anti-police. I noticed by it’s absence, that you seemingly have no problem with cops killing cops as long as they were TRYING to kill/arrest someone else? Interesting, very interesting.

Jeff2161 on February 22, 2012 at 8:57 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

You’re a cop-hating idiot. That woman was behind the wheel high on
high on cocaine and oxycodone and had left the scene of not one but two accidents. And she didn’t even have a valid drivers license.

Yet for all that, all you find fault with is the police who were acting in the moment. What if that woman had hit a child? Even think about that dummy?

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Yet for all that, all you find fault with is the police who were acting in the moment. What if that woman had hit a child? Even think about that dummy?

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Ah, nothing like the Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy, which usually manifests in “Think of the children!”

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:00 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?

I love the way this whole discussion has been set up to trash police just because there was a bad outcome for the woman who was high on cocaine and oxycodone, had left the scene of two accidents, and didn’t even have a valid drivers license. Yet for all that we are expected to attack the police for zapping the woman. Just shameful that we can’t even cut the police some slack with an out of control druggie.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Ah, nothing like the Appeal to Emotion logical fallacy, which usually manifests in “Think of the children!”

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I was simply responding to the moron who likened this woman’s being zapped to hitting a child with a baseball bat. Yet the point remains. I have no problem with zapping those who endanger others by abusing substances and then get behind the wheel of a vehicle. Do you?

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I was simply responding to the moron who likened this woman’s being zapped to hitting a child with a baseball bat. Yet the point remains. I have no problem with zapping those who endanger others by abusing substances and then get behind the wheel of a vehicle. Do you?

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:07 AM

It was a good point.

hawkdriver on February 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I don’t care what or who you were responding to. You tried to base an argument on a fallacy, and I called you on it.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Land of the free and home of the brave. Americas finest hard at work!

snoopicus on February 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM

The term “vegetative” should never be used for humans. It refers to plants, not to men, women or children. I know a lot of you will pour on the jokes, but human beings do not become plants. When used in this sense, “vegetative” is cruel and dismissive.

That woman apparently suffered a severe brain injury, but she has not become, nor will she ever become, a plant.

KyMouse on February 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM

The term “vegetative” should never be used for humans. It refers to plants, not to men, women or children. I know a lot of you will pour on the jokes, but human beings do not become plants. When used in this sense, “vegetative” is cruel and dismissive.

That woman apparently suffered a severe brain injury, but she has not become, nor will she ever become, a plant.

KyMouse on February 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Ok doctor what term would you suggest for describing her condition?

snoopicus on February 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM

The term “vegetative” should never be used for humans. It refers to plants, not to men, women or children. I know a lot of you will pour on the jokes, but human beings do not become plants. When used in this sense, “vegetative” is cruel and dismissive.

That woman apparently suffered a severe brain injury, but she has not become, nor will she ever become, a plant.

KyMouse on February 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM

You do realize that vegetative is an adjective and not a noun, right? And that the word “vegetative” is modifying the word “state”, right?

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I called you on it.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:12 AM

What exactly did you “call me” on? Maybe I’m a little dense this morning but I did not base any argument on a fallacy. Yet why didn’t you answer my question moron? DO YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT IT IS OKAY FOR PEOPLE TO GET HIGH ON DRUGS AND THEN GET BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A VEHICLE? And exactly what should happen if that woman did indeed hit a child because she was high? It is not an unrealistic question considering that she had already caused two separate accidents before being pulled over. Try engaging your tiny little squirrel brain and answer that question instead of simply being a vile human being!

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:23 AM

Years ago it was simple. The message was -”stop or I’ll shoot” Today it is the cops that have their rules, but the anti- rule idiots can do whatever they dang-well please and get a lawyer to sue the law-enforcers later.

This is not Obama’s private army harrassing law-abiding citizens that we’re talking about.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason they run is because they know they can get away with it?

When oh when will we drop the destructive mindset that bad people-behaving badly are victims?

Don L on February 22, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Don L on February 22, 2012 at 9:24 AM

It’s not her fault though, she is a product of the environment in which she was raised. That negates any form of responsibility or accountability.

Norky on February 22, 2012 at 9:28 AM

DO YOU SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT IT IS OKAY FOR PEOPLE TO GET HIGH ON DRUGS AND THEN GET BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A VEHICLE? And exactly what should happen if that woman did indeed hit a child because she was high? It is not an unrealistic question considering that she had already caused two separate accidents before being pulled over. Try engaging your tiny little squirrel brain and answer that question instead of simply being a vile human being!

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:23 AM

What difference does it make if it is a child or not? I doesn’t, but you are going for the emotional effect of using child as uncorrupted innocence full of potential, meant to tug on the heartstrings. Look, whether you know it or not, and whether you like it or not, you are engaging in an Appeal to Emotion. And you continue to use it.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the reason they run is because they know they can get away with it?

When oh when will we drop the destructive mindset that bad people-behaving badly are victims?

Don L on February 22, 2012 at 9:24 AM

When will we stop the destructive mindset that we are all suspects with no Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, and that we should lay down our rights just because a thug with a badge tells us to?

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM

ChicagoBlues on February 22, 2012 at 8:31 AM

Yep, that summed it up well. Let’s forget the perp for a moment, be they a hardened criminal, a jay walking granny or drugged up teenager. Lets just focus on the police officer’s actions. Let’s just take it one step further and declare that today is “Procedural Test Day at the Academy!” Do you think this cop would have gotten a passing grade or a failing grade? My opinion: FAIL. Repeat basic training.

If she had been a truly dangerous criminal, for instance, some kind of nutball terrorist, I would label this cop as criminally incompetent for failing to detain her properly. On more than one occasion. If his incompetence had gotten himself killed, it would be a toss up on who deserved the Darwin award more, the perp or the cop.

ChoppedLiver on February 22, 2012 at 9:32 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

.
What can I say to that, besides,”thank you for your honesty”?

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 9:38 AM

When a suspect is in the process of escaping and heading into a risk of death in traffic, the use of a taser is justified. Police have authority to arrest people and escaping before the charges are addressed is itself a crime. The woman was also a threat to cause traffic accidents. Although this behavior does not justify the death penalty, she brought the use of a taser on herself and suffered tragic consequences.

The whining by socialist bleeding heart scumbags is the only positive outcome, since it outs some despicable idiot commenters on HA.

WhatNot on February 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

When will we stop the destructive mindset that we are all suspects with no Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, and that we should lay down our rights just because a thug with a badge tells us to?
Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM

.
Stopping when a Police Officer yells “Stop!”, doesn’t constitute “laying down our rights”.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Look, whether you know it or not, and whether you like it or not, you are engaging in an Appeal to Emotion. And you continue to use it.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Whether you know it or not you are a moron. I’ll take your refusal to say that it is wrong to get high and then drive that you’ve done it yourself and feel empathy with the druggie and not the police who are tasked with keeping even people like you and this woman safe- even from themselves. Please stay off the roads when you decide to abuse drugs because you might well hit a child even if you deem that fact too emotional to discuss.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM

When will we stop the destructive mindset that we are all suspects with no Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, and that we should lay down our rights just because a thug with a badge tells us to?

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Your right to abuse drugs stops when you put others well being at risk. Your declaration that police are thugs says all that we need to know about your character. Again, please stay off the roads when you are high. The life you save may be your own.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:54 AM

Stopping when a Police Officer yells “Stop!”, doesn’t constitute “laying down our rights”.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

And that’s just the thing. I’m not sure if it’s the media or human nature but people become so polarized… You’ll see a case like this where the cop used a taser on a suspect who is fleeing the station in which she’s being held under arrest and the anti-cop folks poop their pants.

On the flip side, you will see a clear cut case of police brutality and the pro-cop folks start pooping their pants in defense of the criminal cops.

There is a balance people, not all cops are good, not all cops are bad. FFS.

WeekendAtBernankes on February 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I’m late to the thread, but would people react differently if he had tackled her and had the same result, weather she hit her head on the ground or against the cop car? If the result was the same, what difference is it that he used a taser? His not restraining her properly was pretty stupid, but if you going to look at original causes of the problem, then the woman is to blame.

Corsair on February 22, 2012 at 10:03 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

It’s called “The Felony Murder Rule”.
It’s a very much needed law and ignorance of the law is never a mitigating factor.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 22, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Don’t run from the cops. Her fault. No sympathy here.

bridgetown on February 22, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Whether you know it or not you are a moron. I’ll take your refusal to say that it is wrong to get high and then drive that you’ve done it yourself and feel empathy with the druggie and not the police who are tasked with keeping even people like you and this woman safe- even from themselves. Please stay off the roads when you decide to abuse drugs because you might well hit a child even if you deem that fact too emotional to discuss.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Wow. Let’s see how many fallacies you can ring up.

* personal attack
* straw man
* appeal to emotion.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 10:09 AM

he term “vegetative” should never be used for humans. It refers to plants, not to men, women or children. I know a lot of you will pour on the jokes, but human beings do not become plants. When used in this sense, “vegetative” is cruel and dismissive.

That woman apparently suffered a severe brain injury, but she has not become, nor will she ever become, a plant.

KyMouse on February 22, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Ok doctor what term would you suggest for describing her condition?

snoopicus on February 22, 2012 at 9:18 AM

How about “dead in every way that matters”?

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM

She put herself there.
Everything that happened was a result of a decision she made.
She decided to get high.
She decided to drive without a license while high.
She decided to leave the scene of an accident.
She decided to continue driving.
She decided to leave the scene of another accident.
She decided to continue driving.
She decided to try to flee after apprehension.

And would we be having this discussion if he tackled her and she still smacked her head on the concrete? She was a fleeing felon. Use of the Taser is an execise in restraint.

And cops cuff you in front after you’ve slipped the cuffs once so they can watch your hands.

M240H on February 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM

.
Stopping when a Police Officer yells “Stop!”, doesn’t constitute “laying down our rights”.

listens2glenn on February 22, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Freedom is a foreign concept to you, which I suppose is why you gravitate toward authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM

WeekendAtBernankes on February 22, 2012 at 9:55 AM

ChoppedLiver called it.

I think If she had been a truly dangerous criminal, for instance, some kind of nutball terrorist, I would label this cop as criminally incompetent for failing to detain her properly. On more than one occasion. If his incompetence had gotten himself killed, it would be a toss up on who deserved the Darwin award more, the perp or the cop.

ChoppedLiver on February 22, 2012 at 9:32 AM

She rolled the dice and lost, she got high, and then got behind the wheel with a suspended license. In the best case scenario she would have been arrested by someone at the top of his peer’s performance. The use of non lethal force “tazer” should have favored her survival. It didn’t, it was a freak accident the outcome of a perfect storm of a string of bad actions on her part, and the police.

I do have sympathy for her she is only 19 years old, and already ingesting powerful drugs – drugs that a huge man would have had a difficult time metabolizing. There are only 3 outcomes for addiction. Sobered up, Locked Up or Toes Up. She’s in a (Coma) it looks like she feel through the cracks. I bet it wasn’t the first time she feel through cracks of society.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 10:12 AM

The first question is: Is there Police abuse and brutality all over the country? The answer is absolutely yes.
The second question is: If true that this woman is a drug junkie is there is a loss to society with her brain dead condition of this woman? The answer is absolutely not because she has been already brain dead from moral and behavorial point of view even before she was physically braind dead.
PS: Now you can scream and yell how insensitive and heartless I am.

mnjg on February 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM

fell not feel.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

If he had tackled her, she still might have hit her head. The taser is not the cause of the head injury, the cause was the need to restrain this drugged up woman before she hurt herself or someone else. There is always some risk of injury with involuntary restraint, yet police are still required to restrain people like this woman. It’s sad that the woman died, but the police were absolutely justified.

mbs on February 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Drugs suck.

patriotmom1776 on February 22, 2012 at 2:45 AM

People don’t have to take them. Its personal choice. I needed to chew on this topic a bit before tossing in my two cents.

There are more than enough mistakes to go around in this case, however, the woman is the catalyst for everything that went wrong during that entire series of events.

If I had to weigh it out I find her far more culpable than the cop regarding the outcome, and that she is, in the larger measure, the source of her own misfortune.

She took enough drugs to impair her judgement and driving.
She drove under the influence and fled multiple accidents.
She chose to escape and resist the officer’s attempts to detain her. Her injury is the result of an unforseen accident.

The cop needs to be retrained until there is certainty that he knows how to properly conduct himself in similar situations or be reassigned to a desk job.

dogsoldier on February 22, 2012 at 10:19 AM

He shot an unarmed person in the back. Go to jail do not pass go, do not collect a pension.

jake49 on February 22, 2012 at 10:22 AM

By the way, we had a case of death by taser in Cincinnati a few months ago. College student in a dorm. There was a disturbance, police were called, he was a bystander. Wouldn’t get out of the policeman’s face after being warned, so they tased him, which apparently went in too close to his heart and he had a heart attack and died. Wrongful death suit to follow.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110807/NEWS01/108080320/Teen-who-died-University-Cincinnati-had-been-hit-by-Taser-before

Paul-Cincy on February 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

As a retired Detroit cop, police today don’t put handcuffs on tight enough. It’s PC not to make the criminal uncomfortable. If you put them on tight, they don’t escape………………

vietvet68 on February 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Somebody get her name off the voter registration rolls, quickly, or she will be voting for Obama again in November.

2ndMAW68 on February 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Paul-Cincy on February 22, 2012 at 10:24 AM

From Cincinnati tasing death report:

Officers rushed to Turner Hall at about 3 a.m. after receiving a 911 call about an assault. The dormitory is located on Jefferson Avenue near the intersection with West University Avenue.

As officers were trying to figure out what happened, Howard approached them outside the hall.

He appeared agitated, angry and had balled fists, UC Assistant Police Chief Jeff Corcoran said.

Officers ordered Howard to stop approaching them more than once, but he refused, Corcoran said.

Paul-Cincy on February 22, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I am definitely a person that respects the law and policeman but after watching this several times and reading about the cuffs and how she had already gotten one off in the car, I have to say this looks like a cop that just kinda wanted to use the Taser. Having seen her remove a handcuff in the car he should have been extra vigilant when he was writing his report and by that I mean handcuff her to the chair, or be between her and the door. Just before he tasers her he was within reach of her and could have easily caught her in the parking lot. At the very least he could have grabbed her hair and that would have brought her to a halt as well. Looks to me like an out of shape cop, irritated possibly and taking the easy way out.

SgtRed on February 22, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Maybe someone else has made this point but I haven’t seen it.

The reason this cop tazed this girl is because he looks to be a big tub of goo who knew he was gonna get out-run by this skinny coked-up woman even in cuffs and while stoned. Let’s face it; he was physically incapable of safely chasing her down so he took an easier course of action.

I have nothing but respect for the police, but perhaps part of the conversation needs to be that our cops need to maintain a minimum level of physical ability that will let them run someone like this down if necessary.

Nate Greene on February 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

It’s PC not to make the criminal uncomfortable. If you put them on tight, they don’t escape………………

vietvet68 on February 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

To be PC, shouldn’t that be alleged criminal?

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I have nothing but respect for the police, but perhaps part of the conversation needs to be that our cops need to maintain a minimum level of physical ability that will let them run someone like this down if necessary.

Nate Greene on February 22, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I get your point, and it would be basic common sense, but don’t the police belong to you know unions……so that common sense thingy….

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I’m not convinced that tackling the woman was any less ‘dangerous’ than tasering her. She smashed her head on the concrete – which could have happened tackling her too.

But then some people would have been screaming “why didn’t you just taser her”? Sometimes cops have no good choices.

Squiggy on February 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM

As a retired Detroit cop, police today don’t put handcuffs on tight enough. It’s PC not to make the criminal uncomfortable. If you put them on tight, they don’t escape………………

vietvet68 on February 22, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I bet you have more than a few “war stories” to relate. Thanks for surviving.
This woman got off easier than Malice Green, eh?

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Why would the cop need to tackle her to subdue her? At the start of the video he was only about 2 feet away from her when he pulled his tazer. All the dude had to do was reach out and grab her arm.

As for the nonsense about her about to run into traffic — look at where the are when he pulls the taser. Nowhere near the road. They are right at the door to the station. She wasn’t even pointed towards the road. I know that section of town, and she had lots of room to run just on her side of the road. There’s entire subdivisions behind that police station.

AngusMc on February 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

AngusMc on February 22, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Stop with the meaningless facts already. If you think cops shouldn’t be able to kill people, you’re a pinko. /

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 11:00 AM

I’m not convinced that tackling the woman was any less ‘dangerous’ than tasering her. She smashed her head on the concrete – which could have happened tackling her too.

Squiggy on February 22, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Really excellent point.

The real problem was she was in custody in a controlled situation, and then all of the sudden she was out of custody in an uncontrolled situation. Then the police have to adapt in a way they never imagined.

Paul-Cincy on February 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM

I’m guessing that had she not been a woman none of this would have happened (or certainly would have played out differently).

She would have been cuffed much more securely and would not ever have been left unsecured. The cop was being “sympathetic” to the alleged criminal because it was a female. She got lose not once, but twice, and so he had to deal with it.

If he’d done his job properly we would never have heard of this. This woman would likely be in jail (or rehab somewhere).

theblackcommenter on February 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM

When you start going on the side of a person high, hurting people and trying to escape, it makes me wonder about those who side on drugs rather than common sense.

upinak on February 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM

About one fourth of the commenters on this site show me that the millions of people around the world who wondered how the German people could have ever done the horrible things they did in WWII to the Jews, Poles and Gypsies can now see that the American population has the same element in it that Germany had and are just as mindless and uncaring as the Gestapo was. I know some of you are making “Funny” comments just to be “Funny” and you think you are real snarky. But some of you have gone through a thought process and have come up with the idea that she got what she deserved or that society is better off without her. WOW! “Don’t run from cops”, “Do what a cop tells you to do” and on and on. If you are mentally impaired you do not have that ability! Whether it is caused by drugs or in the case I mentioned earlier about the shell shocked old man it is the cop’s DUTY to determine how and why the perp is acting the way they are and to determine how much and what kind of force to apply. If cops lose that ability or are not trained to detect a person’s inability to follow commands then we are being ruled by robots with deadly force. I truly hope some of you macho guys never find yourselves on the small end of a weapon in a cops hand. I’ve been there with a revolver COCKED and pointing at me! If you have ever felt hopeless just put yourself in that situation with the command to “Don’t open your f**king mouth”. Not knowing what I had done wrong, it turns out nothing, it is a feeling of total inhuman degradation. Once something like this happens to you, you will NEVER look at a cop the same way.

inspectorudy on February 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM

It’s not her fault though, she is a product of the environment in which she was raised. That negates any form of responsibility or accountability.

Norky on February 22, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It’s just our bringin’ up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we’re punks!

Kenosha Kid on February 22, 2012 at 11:29 AM

When you start going on the side of a person high, hurting people and trying to escape, it makes me wonder about those who side on drugs rather than common sense.

upinak on February 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Ah, you support summary execution without trial for alleged DUI offenders. I guess you could make the argument….

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Jumping in late here, but…

The cop is definitely at fault in this situation. He is a trained professional, paid for by taxpayers to deal with these kinds of situations. She was a young woman, temporarily not completely in control (aka: under the influence). The burden of acting like a competetent adult is on the trained professional who we all pay to act like an adult. The girl (to coin a phrase) “acted stupidly” but the cop, instead of reacting appropriately, allowed this girl to escape his restraints.

The cop is / was going to swear in court that the woman was too impaired to drive. Yet, instead of dealing with an impaired woman appropriately, he let her escape, deemed her a risk and then tased her.

He should have never let it get to that point.

Timin203 on February 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Somebody get her name off the voter registration rolls, quickly, or she will be voting for Obama again in November.

2ndMAW68 on February 22, 2012 at 10:26 AM

Ahh…this would be so much funnier, if only it weren’t so true.

dave_ross on February 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM

The outcome of this will be an entire re-write of police policies across the nation. No one needs mulit-million dollar lawsuits hinging on whether or not a police officer cuffs someone hands forward vs. behind them.

I surmise that cuffing hands-behind makes flight more difficult–so is the argument that he failed to follow procedure (and the bit about not cuffing to the chair as well) an argument that he essentially encouraged the woman to flee? I find that laughable but I cannot imagine what other contributing factor is underlying the “not following procedure” charge. And if that is a meritorious accusation, then we apparently need fewer published police procedures, or a re-write such that cuffing the “wrong way” leads to huge liability for the municipality.

As for tasering being “lazy”; if a fall to the ground is as frightfully dangerous as some here are making it sound, why should the officer be required to risk his life by falling to the ground himself by tackling her when other options are available to him? It’s not that dangerous of course: this is a freak accident, and the whole wide world is paved, so it’s not as if he could have looked (or should somehow have been required to find) a softer landing place. And as many have noted, it’s dumb to argue that the outcome for her would have been any different if she fell with her legs wrapped up by a 250 lb man than if she fell under the effects of a taser.

Anyone medical want to comment on whether the drugs she had ingested contributed to the severity of her injury, or her lapsing into a coma as a result?

TexasDan on February 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Don’t see any reason to use the taser in that situation, it sounds like the police officer really only used it to save him the embarrassment of a girl half his size getting away from him.

clearbluesky on February 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Just shameful that we can’t even cut the police some slack with an out of control druggie.

Happy Nomad on February 22, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Obviously we can. The cop isn’t being charged with anything.

But if his concern truly was in protecting her (not just the car she might have run into), then he clearly shouldn’t have tased her.

No, the woman in this case isn’t sympathetic, but considering how lethal tasers can be, it’s past time we adjusted procedures on when to use them and focus on making sure cops have tried other options first. This time it’s a woman high on drugs who left the scene of an accident, but let’s not pretend that innocent people are never detained by the police.

Just pretend the TSA did this.

Esthier on February 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM

As for tasering being “lazy”; if a fall to the ground is as frightfully dangerous as some here are making it sound, why should the officer be required to risk his life by falling to the ground himself by tackling her when other options are available to him? It’s not that dangerous of course: this is a freak accident, and the whole wide world is paved, so it’s not as if he could have looked (or should somehow have been required to find) a softer landing place. And as many have noted, it’s dumb to argue that the outcome for her would have been any different if she fell with her legs wrapped up by a 250 lb man than if she fell under the effects of a taser.

Anyone medical want to comment on whether the drugs she had ingested contributed to the severity of her injury, or her lapsing into a coma as a result?

TexasDan on February 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM

The cop made a series of bad decisions that led to her being injured. She also made bad decisions, but according to the cop she was impaired and thus unable to make good decisions. Instead of being primarily worried about protecting her from herself, as he claimed in his defense, from the series of events that we all know about, it seems that he was completely negligent, and again as the “trained professional” we should expect much more from the police than high teenagers.

Timin203 on February 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

I’m guessing that had she not been a woman none of this would have happened (or certainly would have played out differently).

She would have been cuffed much more securely and would not ever have been left unsecured. The cop was being “sympathetic” to the alleged criminal because it was a female. She got lose not once, but twice, and so he had to deal with it.

If he’d done his job properly we would never have heard of this. This woman would likely be in jail (or rehab somewhere).

theblackcommenter on February 22, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Well there’s at least one other person who gets it, and I think you make a good point about female sympathy. Again, all this back-and-forth about everything that happened after her leaving the station is meaningless. Had the perp been fully, properly secured, it never would have escalated to what it did. I don’t care if he had to cuff her to the damn bathroom sink. Cop loses in court.

dave_ross on February 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM

There is always some risk of injury with involuntary restraint, yet police are still required to restrain people like this woman. It’s sad that the woman died, but the police were absolutely justified.

[mbs on February 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM]

Sure, but I’d prefer it not need to be a “third time’s the charm” effort by the officer. He failed to place the cuffs on properly the first time. While in the substation conference room, he failed to restrain her in a manner or by location in the room that allowed him keep her there so as not have to watch her while he processed the arrest forms. Isn’t she a flight risk?

The officer was 6′ (per the coke machine) and 267 lbs, per the story. He’s 45# into the obese category. It’s doubtful he could pass the physical abilities test that assesses the “physical attributes which reflect core enabling knowledge, skills and abilities and essential tasks common for law enforcement, corrections and correctional probation officers.” and puts himself at risk for being out of shape, anyway.

Yeah, the woman is, in a measure, responsible for the consequences of her actions, even when in a drug induced state. She is not responsible for being arrested by an officer who neither can perform minimal standards of care and control, nor maintain the physical abilities required of FHP for the position. That’s just bad luck.

Dusty on February 22, 2012 at 11:44 AM

There are an awful lot of people on here raising the strawman hypothetical of “if he had tackled her and she were in a coma, you’d all be saying ‘Why didn’t he tase her?’”. Clearly you don’t understand how a taser works.

From wikipedia:

A Taser is an electroshock weapon that uses electrical current to disrupt voluntary control of muscles.

So when a police officer fires a taser at a fleeing suspect, it is not only a possibility or a probability that the tased person will hard on the ground, it is a near certainty.

We have all fallen down in our lives. What keeps us from getting seriously hurt is that most of us put our hands out, or roll, or – at a minimum – hold our head up to avoid serious head injury. If this officer had pushed, tripped, or even tackled the girl, she (or he, in the case of a tackle) could have taken steps to prevent the hard impact of a head on concrete.

Not to mention that the video clearly demonstrates that he was close enough to grab her. He SLOWED DOWN in order to fire his taser.

And don’t even get me started with the sheeple on here who think it’s okay for a police officer to shoot anyone who doesn’t stop on command. Yikes.

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Think of brotherly love, or universal compassion. Would the cop have done the same thing if it was his own daughter? He might have. It’s not a fair question to ask him, but I’d be interested in his answer.

Paul-Cincy on February 22, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Re Vegetative – WRONG WRONG WRONG. That’s a word associated with plants, and used to describe plant life but means something more, something else, and is properly applied to a person in her condition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com“/dictionary/vegetative but does not describe it’s actual meaning.

Note that “: of or relating to the division of nature comprising the plant kingdom” is only a secondary (In MW, tertiary) meaning.

SarahW on February 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM

It might be helpful to have the latin roots from which it is derived:

1595–1605; < Latin vegetātus (past participle of vegetāre to quicken, enliven), equivalent to veget ( us ) lively (orig. past participle of vegēre to give vigor) + -ātus -ate1

SarahW on February 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM

It’s a pretty apt description of a person who takes in nutrients and may grow but has lost the ability of thought and locomotion. There are automatic functions without will, there is no higher existence – just eat and grow.

SarahW on February 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM

I used to believe that the vast majority of cops were faithful public servants dedicated to protecting the public that pays them. Then I grew up.
I think the growing numbers of lousy, abusive, crooked cops is the fault of police departments not properly or thoroughly screening their applicants. Too many weak minds and marginal personalities getting badges and authority. Add in the CYA mentality and it’s a recipe for potentially serious social unrest. If a cop gives me a lawful order I will comply but I will not trust him and I will remain on my guard.

swinia sutki on February 22, 2012 at 12:19 PM

She made all of the bad and illegal decisions. The officer was doing his job and has nothing to with an illegal or iinappropriate act. He possibly prevented her from running onto the highway and causing her death or the death of innocent people in the accident that would probably resulted by her intrusion into traffic. Who is to say whether or not had she escaped that she would not drive again high on drugs and kill someone.
Stop defendIng the criminals and falsely accusing law enforcement personnel.
No one can say what the officer could have done or the woman could have done. She chose to run because she knew she had committed criminal acts. Sorry she made such a bad decision that caused her to be brain dead. Her brain was already screwed up before the fall!

harvey1 on February 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I support the cops. All you ‘feel good’ posters need to take a ride with a couple of patrol cops, and spend a couple of late night hours at the police station. They mostly do a great job. Being human, some mistakes are made, but few.

This was not a mistake on the part of the police. A cop had 2 or 3 seconds to stop a drug-crazed person from running into a busy street, and maybe killing several more people in accidents.

dahni on February 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Many big attaboys for the cop. At least got one more unstable, drug addicted, useless POS off the streets. Do dumb, illegal stuff and get what you deserve. Too bad she isn’t dead. Now taxpayers will have to pay out the bu^^ to keep her alive in a veggie state.

boogieboy on February 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Right. She was also handcuffed, which would inhibit her ability to catch her fall, and stoned, which could likely completely finish off her reflexes.

You clearly don’t understand how a tackle works, either. The addition of his momentum to hers could easily have increased the force with which her head hit the ground, and it’s hard to take seriously the notion that she would have had use of her hands while a) handcuffed and b) being tackled.

Yeah, the taser drops you like a fish. Yeah, her judgement was impaired due to her decision to take judgement-impairing drugs. You think the cop didn’t do enough to keep her from hurting herself, but I ask you: why is the cop really required to continue to put himself at risk to restrain someone who has made so many criminal decisions and is now reaping the consequences?

And yes he slowed down to shoot. You make a better shot that way.

TexasDan on February 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I didn’t read the whole thread, but I did notice a pattern of people complaining that the cop hadn’t restrained the woman adequately. Is there any evidence that there was more he could have (legally) done in order to restrain her? That is a significant question, that the Monday morning quarterbacks need to answer, before they condemn the cop.

Otherwise, I’m kind of on the fence on this one. I tend to put the fault on both the perp and the cop, but I try not to second-guess the judgment of someone whose position I’ve never been in, and that includes both the perp and the cop. It’s so easy to sit in your chair and watch a video, which seldom tells “the whole story,” and jump to a conclusion about what the people should have done in the situation.

I have, however, dealt with druggies when they get wild and uncontrollable, and I am absolutely positive that there are many instances where it is more than appropriate for a cop to taze a drugged out suspect in order to subdue them. Whether this is such a situation is definitely up for debate, as is what the alternative would have been. As several people pointed out, if the cop had tackled her, with the same result, people would be on his case about that.

JannyMae on February 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM

A cop had 2 or 3 seconds to stop a drug-crazed person from running into a busy street,

You might want to watch the video again, it’s obvious he was right behind her, so close in fact that he could have reached out and grabbed her and the only reason he didn’t grab her was because the taser was already in his hand.

clearbluesky on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

If the police officer did not have a taser, what would he have likely done to stop her from running out into the street?

roy_batty on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I didn’t read the whole thread …

JannyMae on February 22, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Which seems to be the same approach as the others who came on the “morning shift” and decided to weigh in without reading points that have already been made on all sides of this discussion.

And before the trolls ask – Yes, I do read all the comments before posting my own.

If you want to join into a discussion, please be courteous enough to bring yourself up to speed on the comments already posted. Otherwise you will just come across as someone more interested in your own point of view with no willingness to consider someone else’s perspective.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

It seemed if he had properly secured her, that tazer hit would have been avoided. It is sad all around.
That being said, he seemed so close to her, it would seem your first natural instinct would be to lunge and grab. You grab someone to keep them from falling, you grab your children to keep them from the street and you grab onto something to keep yourself from falling. I’m not a police officer and don’t wear a tazer on my belt, so I do have to ask are they deployed that often to become second nature? He pulled it pretty fast.

Trinityangel on February 22, 2012 at 1:15 PM

You can’t be a RoboCop unless you display full mastery over the weapons! The officer should not be allowed on patrol with any weapon again.

Sailfish on February 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

You might want to watch the video again, it’s obvious he was right behind her, so close in fact that he could have reached out and grabbed her and the only reason he didn’t grab her was because the taser was already in his hand.

clearbluesky on February 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM

For the record Tasers have an effective range of about 15 feet…..so ummm, yea, I guess it makes sense that he was close.

Afterseven on February 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Many big attaboys for the cop. At least got one more unstable, drug addicted, useless POS off the streets. Do dumb, illegal stuff and get what you deserve. Too bad she isn’t dead. Now taxpayers will have to pay out the bu^^ to keep her alive in a veggie state.

boogieboy on February 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Let’s change a few words and see how your statement holds up.

Many big attaboys for the cop. At least got one more unstable, drug addicted, useless POS human being off the streets. Do dumb,illegal stuff and get what you deserve. Too bad she isn’t dead. Now taxpayers will have to pay out the bu^^ to keep her alive in a veggie state.

boogieboy

Interesting. If you take out two “hot button” phrases and emphasize the core of what you are saying and it fits in perfectly with any despotic piece of propaganda written in the last century.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

For the record Tasers have an effective range of about 15 feet…..so ummm, yea, I guess it makes sense that he was close.

That doesn’t mean it makes sense to use it, he was right behind her, she’s half his size, in handcuffs, all he had to do was reach out and grab her.

clearbluesky on February 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Right. She was also handcuffed, which would inhibit her ability to catch her fall, and stoned, which could likely completely finish off her reflexes.

TexasDan on February 22, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Did you even read the story? She had her hands cuffed in front of her (inappropriately, by the way) so of COURSE she could have used them to catch herself. It’s instinctive. Even a toddler will seek to brace against impact when they fall. As for your “likely finish off her reflexes” comment, nice speculation. So your argument is “It’s alright to force her violently to the ground with NO way of protecting herself from serious head trauma because…. she… ‘likely’ couldn’t have protected herself anyway.” Nice.

And all those people on here supporting the cop’s actions are ignoring the reality that HE SCREWED UP by not properly restraining her in the first place. Handcuff her properly (in the back) at a minimum. Go one better by handcuffing her to a stationary object or by putting her in a holding cell while you do your paperwork.

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

To you defending the cops, they knew she was out of control, they knew she was trying to escape and the one who tased her should have known knocking a handcuffed, running, high individual unconsious with a taser would not end well. Blaming the victim is pretty stupid. What you are saying is too bad for her because the police couldn’t do their job properly.

gitarfan on February 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

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

As serious as a heart attack. Again. Give the cop a medal for doing his JOB; Bill the perp for all costs associated with fleeing Police custody while under lawful arrest for the act of putting her fellow citizens in grave danger by driving on COCAINE and OXY!

Lets keep a reel clear eye on who are the good guys and who are the felons.

By taking Cocaine and Oxy simultaneously your chances of a brain injury, without falling, are 100%. Just a question of severity and timing.

Frankly, this nation is broke and we don’t have time for this sh*t. When you are under arrest…Sit the f*ck down and shut your pie hole, period, if you try to run away….bad things can happen; the motives, rationale and excuses for her attempted escape are irrelevant, hence the word “arrest” aka stop, aka be still. Her bad, tough sh*t.

Your Logic is:

Cops = Fat, Lazy and Stupid = Bad Guy
Fleeing Felon = Innocent Bystander = Good Guy

I expect this logic from leftists.

btw Jeff why should the cop have to risk physical injury tackling her? or putting her in a bear hug? or grabbing her cuffs and getting a knee to the groin?

Lifeguards know that you try to avoid contact with a rescue-ee at all costs, because person to person contact is inherently dangerous to the rescuer, especially a person who is in a state of panic, or who is not thinking clearly. So Lifeguards typically bring an object with them to ensure contact is minimal or non existent. No different for cops. Direct contact with people in a state of panic…is dangerous…for the cop.

Afterseven on February 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Ah, you support summary execution without trial for alleged DUI offenders. I guess you could make the argument….

ElectricPhase on February 22, 2012 at 11:36 AM

A tazer is non lethal, the police didn’t pull a gun out and shoot her. That’s the whole point of tazers non lethal force.

Using your logic that means that CNN tried to kill Rick Sanchez.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Janny Mae brings up a good point: Could she have been restrained more inside the police station?

I have been thinking about this quite a bit. I have never been to the facility where this incident occurred, but from what I gather from the media accounts, it is a substation, not a detention facility.

People have this idea that police stations are as secure as jails. They have this idea that there are rows of holding cells where the perps are placed while the officers do paperwork. That is not often the case.

I work for a large urban police department in the Midwest. We have a headquarters building downtown and three sector roll call buildings. We also have a kennel for our K9 units, a horse barn for the mounted patrol, and a few other satellite offices for other specialized units around town.

The only building that has dedicated temporary holding cells for prisoners is the downtown headquarters building. There are three of them located in the Bureau of Investigation’s office suite next to the interview rooms. That’s it. None of the other facilities have any secure areas in which to place prisoners.

The normal procedure upon making an arrest is to transport the prisoner to our county jail. The jail, constructed in 2000 at a cost of around $80 million, is a pretty secure facility. Police vehicles enter the facility into an underground garage area which is secured by solid doors.

The prisoner is then walked through an interior door from the garage into what is called the passive intake area. It consists of a medium sized room with a metal bench attached to the wall. There is a second, larger room to the right which is an officers’ work area. Off of that room are three smaller rooms where the Intoxilyzers are kept for breath tests and a bathroom.

If an officer hasn’t finished his paperwork and the prisoner is co- operative, he tells the prisoner to sit on the bench, goes into the officers’ work area, and does his paperwork. There are no bolts or hooks to chain the prisoner to. He or she sits, restrained by handcuffs alone, in the passive intake area. The walls are glass so the officer can see his prisoner, but there are no additional restraints placed on the subject.

If a prisoner was to try to bolt from the passive intake area when, for example, the outer door was opened for another officer or something, they could easily make it into the garage. From there, there are a couple of doors that open from the garage to the outside besides the large vehicle doors that are secured. they aren’t locked, at least from the inside. They’re just regular doors.

This situation exists because the jail does not take custody of the suspect until the paperwork is finsihed. The exception would be an exteremely violent prisoner who is still combative. Those prisoners might be taken straight from the passive intake area and secured in a holding cell inside the jail. This situation is actually quite rare.

All of this is at the jail, which is a secure facility. Our sector roll call stations are not secure at all. They’re just offices, with regular office furniture and the like. The outer doors are locked, but not from the inside. Again, like the doors in the jail’s garage, they are just regular doors.

It’s not common, but due to the location of the roll call centers (bad neighborhoods), sometimes people are arrested right outside and brought in for processing while the officer waits for the paddy wagon. While they are in the roll call center there is no place to secure them. They are sat in a chair told to sit until the wagon gets there. Anyone of them could bolt.

Going back to this scenario with the FHP, it’s important to remember that the suspect was under arrest for DUI. Part of any DUI investigation/ arrest is the Intoxilyzer test. Even if the suspect turns out to be high on drugs instead of drunk on alcohol, most DUI offenders have had something to drink. You want to have a measurement of any alcohol impairment even if you think other drugs might be a factor.

In my jurisdiction the Intoxilyzers are at the jail, but in many jurisdictions they are at the police station. I suspect, based upon my experience, that the Intoxlyzer that the trooper was expected to use was in the substation.

Intoxilyzer testing requires a number of steps. For one thing, the accused has to be observed at the location of the test for at least 20 minutes before it is administered. Another thing is that the accused is read an implied consent card, advising them that as a condition of accepting their driver’s license that they have already consented to a breath test if they are arrested for DUI and that there will be automatic adminstrative penalties applied to them if they refuse.

The accused then has to sign the card agreeing to consent to the test. They can’t do that if their hands are handcuffed behind their back. Therefore, at some point in 99.9% of DUI investigations, the suspect’s hands are going to end up cuffed in front of them so that they can use a pen to sign the card, provided that the officer doesn’t make the decision to completely unhandcuff them.

I haven’t read or seen any of the internal FHP documents. Based upon my experience, I am going to hypothesize that the suspect was brought to the unsecure substation for a breath test because that’s where FHP keeps their Intoxilyzer. The handcuffs were placed in front in order to facilitate that investigation, namely the signing of the implied consent card required by law. The officer began his paperwork while waiting out the 20 minute observation period. The suspect saw a chance to bolt from the unsecure facility and took it.

I seriously doubt that there was anything that could have been done to make her more secure. I doubt that there are any holding cells or any secure areas designated for holding prisoners at that facility.

Dukeboy01 on February 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

And all those people on here supporting the cop’s actions are ignoring the reality that HE SCREWED UP by not properly restraining her in the first place. Handcuff her properly (in the back) at a minimum. Go one better by handcuffing her to a stationary object or by putting her in a holding cell while you do your paperwork.

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Actually …umm no. SHE Screwed up by taking Cocaine, and Oxycodone…and then by DRIVING on public roads. She has NO BUSINESS putting her fellow citizens in GRAVE DANGER. Period.

Your complaints about the cop are procedural,
My complaints about the Fleeing Felon are Substantive and a matter of Public Safety.

Keeping this IDIOT off the streets is what we pay these cops to do. Get your head straight.

Afterseven on February 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

A tazer is non lethal when used properly, the police didn’t pull a gun out and shoot her. That’s the whole point of tazers non lethal force.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

This drug addict was not the first person left in a coma after being tased, and repeated tasings HAVE killed people. To say that a force is lethat doesn’t mean that it always leads to death. The PIT maneuver is widely considered lethal force, though it rarely kills people. Many LEO’s (including this office, now) are taught not to tase a person while fleeing for EXACTLY THIS KNOWN RISK.

But again, the lethality of the force is hardly the issue. The excessive force is the issue. Why did he tase her when he was almost 3 times her size and only an arm’s reach away? It was an almost-textbook example of excessive force.

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Actually …umm no. SHE Screwed up by taking Cocaine, and Oxycodone…and then by DRIVING on public roads. She has NO BUSINESS putting her fellow citizens in GRAVE DANGER. Period.

Afterseven on February 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Afterseven, please point me to my comment where I said that this drug addict was guiltless. The debate we’re having deals with how she was punished for her mistakes. The law and PROCEDURE say she probably would have faced some jail time. Instead of that, this officer who DIDN’T FOLLOW PROCEDURE, created an unsafe condition that resulted in her nearly dying. You’re willing to excuse it because he had a badge and was just doing his job.

How hard is it to see that HE WASN’T DOING HIS JOB? His job included properly securing her, and when she ran, to do his utmost to restrain her in a way that limited damage to the public and to her, in that order. Under your reasoning, would it have been okay for the officer to draw his sidearm and shoot her in the kneecap? That’s “not lethal”, right?

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM

“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.”

Did you read Allah’s post? The trooper wasn’t found to have used excessive force.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Maybe it’s living in Las Vegas and my rare and few interactions with the LVMPD here – I no longer trust LOE’s in any way, shape or form. Especially the unionized ones.

Harbingeing on February 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Did you read Allah’s post? The trooper wasn’t found to have used excessive force.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Who do I believe, the FDLE, or my lying eyes?

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Who do I believe, the FDLE, or my lying eyes?

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

According to SCOTUS, your lying eyes don’t matter…

The True Legal Standard
In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down one of the landmark decisions regarding an officer’s use of force. The case was Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386). This decision created a national standard that is still in place today. In its decision, the SCOTUS made it clear that an officer’s use of force on a free citizen is to be evaluated as a seizure of the person under the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the SCOTUS said in its holding:

All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force – deadly or not – in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.

What is important to the reader for this article is the phrase “objective reasonableness.” How did the SCOTUS come to this term? Perhaps a quick review of the Fourth Amendment can shed some light. The Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and its agents. Therefore it would logically follow that officers must act reasonably when seizing people.

Graham set forth several evaluation guidelines and factors to be taken into consideration when evaluating an officer’s use of force. These evaluation guidelines include one overarching direction to anybody who chooses to opine about an officer’s force response:

The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.

Once the person that chooses to render his/her opinion understands this overarching direction, they also need to be aware of these guidelines while making their determination of the reasonableness of the officer’s force response:

1.) Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
a. Officer with same or similar training and experience
b. Facing similar circumstances
c. Act the same way or use similar judgment

2.) Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
a. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
b. No hindsight evaluation
3.) Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
4.) Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time

In order for an officer’s use of force to be deemed “objectively reasonable,” his/her force response (“what” and “how”) must be reasonably balanced with the governmental interests at stake (“why”). The officer’s force response level (quantum) can be measured by evaluating:

1.) “what” force option was used, and
2.) “how” it was used.

Another way of viewing this would be to ask the question, “What was the reasonable expectation of injury?”

In Graham, the SCOTUS gave law enforcement several factors to examine when evaluating the “why” of an officer’s force option including, but not limited to:

1.) the severity of crime at issue,
2.) the threat of the suspect, and
3.) the level of resistance offered by the suspect.

“Objectively reasonable” is the true — and most accurate — legal standard when both teaching use of force, and/or evaluating an officer’s past use of force. Using any other standard is avoidably dangerous because it is a false legal standard and can be easily misinterpreted or misrepresented — either knowingly or not.

Full article here.

Dukeboy01 on February 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Did you read Allah’s post? The trooper wasn’t found to have used excessive force.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

That’s very convenient, don’t you think? I have never heard of an agency covering for itself through self-investigation and a finding of, “All’s good here!”

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Dukeboy01 on February 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Thanks for the Constitutional analysis. With that as a guideline, I still think the officer’s actions are almost certainly excessive.

Of course he raised the patently and demonstrably false justification that he thought she was going to run into traffic, but other than that line of bull, what threat was she to herself or anyone else? Oh right… the officer would have had to break a sweat chasing her down, so he shot her instead. (Yes, yes, I know, it wasn’t a bullet. But he shot her, and she was grievously injured – a predictable outcome of his decision to tase her while she was running away).

Longing4Lincoln on February 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

It is insane who we give so much power to. Cops should be a profession and not a low-level trade. I think this idiot should be brought up on charges.

Redstone357 on February 22, 2012 at 2:27 PM

If you want to join into a discussion, please be courteous enough to bring yourself up to speed on the comments already posted. Otherwise you will just come across as someone more interested in your own point of view with no willingness to consider someone else’s perspective.

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Who are you the comment cop? Some of us have lives and jobs and don’t want to read 6 pages of mostly stupid comments before we make our own stupid comment. Often there are several hundred comments already posted by the time we get here and personally I have no interest in reading them all.
Do me a favor and check if someone else already called you a douche in a previous comment as I am more than willing to consider their perspective.

Meow on February 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Long and short – it appears this officer followed his department’s policy. Her falling and hitting her head after being tased was her fault and hers alone. Period.

Our training dictates that we’re to be mindful of potential fall risks – in other words, don’t tase someone who is in a tree or on a slanted rooftop, for example. However, tasing someone who is running is pretty common and universally accepted, as it should be.

Also, her being cuffed also had nothing to do with her hitting her head – you can’t break your fall or whatnot as you’re muscles are locked up. You just. . . fall. (I know – I’ve taken the full 5 second ride, barbs and all. Not fun.) And sometimes in life, when you fall, heads get split open. It’s a potential part of taking the ride. Unfortunate when it happens but just because you’re running from the law doesn’t mean you’re immune to the law of gravity. :)

In the end, the officer, the department, and countless others will be sued by this scrote’s family. They’ll take their $20K settlement to go away, policies in the department will be adjusted to help prevent this, the cop will go on with his career and the junkie skank broad will still be dead.

It’s sad but life goes on *shrug,*

Cop of 11 years and a supervisor who is going to bed now since he’s got to get up at 0330 for work! :P

RedNewEnglander on February 21, 2012 at 9:09 PM

This retired one agrees with you. The rest who disagree, well I’ll keep that to myself. Hopefully the video teaches the next idiot to think twice about not running.

What this video doesn’t show is the officer beating the snot of a suspect who is helpless. It doesn’t show a group of officers using ASP’s over and over on her while she laying down. It doesn’t show an officer discharging his firearm into her while she was unarmed. Now those could be reasons to charge officers.

What really happened was a series of events that was preventable had only one person choose not to runaway. End of story.

Conservative4Ever on February 22, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Who are you the comment cop? Some of us have lives and jobs and don’t want to read 6 pages of mostly stupid comments before we make our own stupid comment. Often there are several hundred comments already posted by the time we get here and personally I have no interest in reading them all.
Do me a favor and check if someone else already called you a douche in a previous comment as I am more than willing to consider their perspective.

Meow on February 22, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Thank you for proving the validity of my request.

No, you alone own the responsibility of engaging in an ad hominen attack

PolAgnostic on February 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM

That’s very convenient, don’t you think? I have never heard of an agency covering for itself through self-investigation and a finding of, “All’s good here!”

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The mother stated she’s suing, she can challenge their decision. She will have to prove that he didn’t follow the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Guidelines.

Dr Evil on February 22, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7