He can later become a rapper and boast about "how he got tazered 19 times."

"He refused to comply with the officers and so the officers had to deploy their Tasers in order to subdue him. He is making incoherent statements; he's also making statements such as, 'Shoot cops, kill cops,' things like that. So there was cause for concern to the officers."

Ozark police say that while there remains unanswered questions in the case, the reason for the use of the Taser is not one of them."

It was obvious he was trying to get some street cred.

A long time ago there was debate over the increased use of "non-lethal" tools to control crime.

I was on the fence. Most seemed to feel that this was a good thing, that force could be used but not lethal force. Others were worried that the option of a non-lethal force would just allow or even tempt law enforcement to use said force more often than they normally would. Now most of these 'non-lethal' instruments aren't actually 'non-lethal' except in terms of statistics. That is to say most of the time a taser will not be lethal, except for the increased chance of heart attack or stroke. However, if the pessimists are correct then police will be using this non-lethal force so much more that these 'small chances' will increase over all. I have to agree.
I have to say it seems the pessimists had a good point. How many deaths have resulted? Police use these devices self-assured they won't be killing anyone but it's a false assumption and so now we have how many deaths in circumstances that never would've warranted a firearm attack?

I have to say I'm leaning towards the pessimists. It is potentially lethal; Police do use them more often (and diplomacy less often); and subsequently people, in many cases completely innocent people or at least many who were no danger to anyone (except maybe themselves) are dying. Further is there really a cop out there faced with a situation that previously would've called for the use of a firearm who would instead use a taser? I don't think so, so we're not really replacing lethal force with a technological wonder-toy that works as well but isn't lethal.


It might be different if tasers were replacing firearms but they're not, they're augmenting them. i think the whole issue really needs to be revisited.


The other issue is this idea that society has to give police the benefet of the doubt in situations like this or they'll 'hesitate' in future situations. i say so what? They weren't thinking hard about it already? Doesn't seem like these police were considering it for even a second. Since when is the use of lethal force not something that needs to be considered carefully? You don't even do that with a helmet on in Afghanistan: you don't just go shooting any 'suspect' that walks by. You don't even shoot them if they're armed with an AK. Generally you wait until they lift it then you shout a warning or even fire a warning shot. They should think about it hard before using it; they should be hesitating, after all it's a situation that doesn't call for lethal force so it's not a life or death situation for the cop in question is it? No one in a lawful society, police or otherwise, should feel that they can use force without any fear of retribution if it is misused.

bring back the days of eye-for-an-eye. Drop that cop from 30' then taser him for half hour.
Just sayin',
Ahk

Supposedly this kid was trying to walk into traffic and that's why they tasered him.

That's why I said "supposedly." And what if all that tasering killed this kid? What's the excuse then?