Woman blocking Mcdonalds drive-thru Tased by deputies

The storey doesn't have a lot of details but, since these "less than lethal" devices were first presented to the public as an alternative to lethal force and now are routinely used as cattle prods and/or, punishment,

I suspect there may have been a "better way" to end the other costumers inconvenience and protect McDonald's profits

Should the cops of done it the old fashioned way of beating her with batons and physically subdueing her and dragging her away from the drive through window? Even if you are in the right, blocking the drive through window for 20 minutes because you have a complaint about your meal from the Ritz to Waffle House is out of line.

The poor shmuck that was cut by this schank that then held @!$%# up by her getting tazered didn't deserve it. That is why most folk she this @!$%# for what she is.

FOY-49

do you have any idea, how much money time and paper work is saved by cops not having to put there hands on people, and risk injury.

The amount of money the public pays into health care programs that cops use, that amount has dropped across the board, because instead of tackling, some chick like this one and landing wrong, a cop doesn't have a broken finger or a busied knee and so on.

maybe you need to go to a citizens academy or a ride along with your local police dept and see what you would do with call after call after call where some police officers have to deal with use of force encounters, and then ask your self, hands on or taser......i mean really roy!!!

And dont get me wrong, those officers who do out of laziness or aggressively use a tazer are dead wrong, but in situations where the public wants action taken-- let the guys do there job!!

#6.1 - 6.2

I do not accept the assertion by those who promote tazers, as a "safe" alternative to deadly force, tazers kill, tazers facilitate police miss-conduct, tazers are not a substitute for good police work, and violence is often not the best path to the resolution of a problem.

Don't presume that I am inexperienced, or nave.

FOY

you seemed confused on what constitutes force, you seem to think that a taser is considered use of force it is not, I CANT HELP you understand that-- you google use of force and on most charts use of a taser is right behind verbal commands.

i work in the jail here in mpls, mn and i am very well aware of what and how tasers are to be deployed, you think that some chick cant be a threat with nails, the fact that handcuffs are not made for smaller wrists, that if you had any hands on experience, you would KNOW THAT wrestling with a woman to get her into handcuffs is a very hard thing to do, because they are 2 or 3 times more flexible and thus officers over compensate and thats how they get hurt.

a tazer is a compliance tool, its great that you can count on two hands the deaths from a taser, are we up to 10 or 15 a year.

big deal, most of those deaths have other factors involved compared to the use of tasers that have saved alot of injuries to officers, who didnt have to go hands on at all.

IT WOULD BE GREAT, if a doctor showed up to evaluate this woman, and that she would tell the truth on what drugs she took, or alcohol she drank or how depressed she is with life or how mad she was that McDonalds didn't have what she wanted.

but thats not a cops job, it is simple to restore order based on the fact that THE PUBLIC has a right to not be interfered with or a business not disrupted by an unruly patron.

UGH means i cant believe you really believe what you type.

again, feel free to go for a ride along or join a citizens academy and depending on where you live in this great land of ours, and at the moments of conflict that occurs , see how well your theory works.

at some point feel free to listen to a POLICE scanner on the internet and wonder how many of those calls do you think YOUR NON lethal approach will work-- probably not very well in some domestics or fail to yield car chases.

and maybe the biggest point will be just notice how many calls for service there are meaning how many in the time you listened were squads DISPATCHED to deal with something.

Thanks for the "ugh" explanation, kinda like the sound I make when I hear some of the responses I get from my adolescent relatives after trying to explain something they don't "get" .

"Official"definitions of force, or nonlethal force are often different than the title would seems to imply. For instance, D.O.D's definition of nonlethal is simply "not intended to cause death" not as the name seems to imply (not life threatening), but if you do die, we didn't mean to kill you.

My use of the word force was intended to be in the general sense, as one of the ways to influence a situation, facilitate, encourage, offer alternatives, reason, force, threaten, and on and on. Taser International will encourage as many different uses of there product as they can get away with to enhance sales, but they have been forced (there's that word again) to re-wright there literature, (law suits). tasers are not to be used as torture devices, in order to (force) compliance with commands. There's a definition for ya, look up torture ?

The last I knew it would take 20 or 30 peoples worth of fingers to tally up the dead taser victims, not two or three. The number is over 200 and I don't know how old that number is now.

There were 5 officer filed suits directly against Taser International for injury's sustained during "Taser Training ?

According to a study done in my home state, taser misuse was wide spread and routine.

Are you aware of the problems involved in using tasers in conjunction with CS gas ?

Are you aware of the problems with A Fib., and Ventricular Fibrillation and cardiac arrest ?

You and I have had different life experiences, and man I don't envy yours, living in the great frozen north, working in a jail, it's natural that we would have different perspectives, what I have offered is my opinion based on my personal experiences, not a theory.

Of course there are "other factors " involved, none of the taser testing that I know of was done on less than healthy, and/or on subjects under duress, with elevated adrenalin levels, read some independent medical reports on the danger of taser use.

If you like the U Tube there are plenty of examples of taser misuse to be found .

I guess maybe that's our point of contention, or debate, and may not be able to be "definitely" settled ?

Based on the studies showing wide spread misuse and the death and injury totals, I (vote) no.

I will agree to disagree, if you will ?

Just a curiosity on my part, which ranks higher, officer safety or public safety ?

foy

your question can not be answered as if they are on the same level.

public being safe is always a goal of any officer doing his job by wanting to restore order.

the need of the officer to be safe from harm can be most important because self preservation is a human trait not a job trait. thus officer safety is key to assuring that the public can be safe.

And by the way, studies and so on for any argument will also try to appear like its more then it is, so that you can maintain that stance.

I am more in line with the scope of the argument which is that deaths vs deployment is a very low percentage, but deaths do occur.

Misuse will always be a interpretive view, does it happen, yes it does, should it happen, no it shouldn't> But does that off set the need of the tool to gain compliance where hands on could result in officer injury, it does not.

The video chip tasers seem to be a good way of cutting down on abuse and when it is cost effective or a industry demand than that will cut down on abuse and be instituted nation wide.

FOY

your personal medical situation, is i am sure annoying and you have a valid reason to not like, tasers and its effect on your would be not good.

thus the point i have raised several times is choice.

I WIL ASSUME YOU WOULD MAKE A CHOICE THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE AN OFFICER TO TASER YOU because your out of control or do not follow a police directive, because you have self control, thus theres no need for you to be concerned other then to make a fuss, which 63 years old can do.