You know what I've been tased three times for fun....what's the big freakin deal??? Everybody who is saying we shouldn't use tasers sound like a bunch of whiney vajayjays to me...Tasers are not as bad as everyone thinks...take a shot and then do some talkin if you die then...well...i guess you won that argument
First, try a course in basic logic before you declare yourself the victor of anything.
Unless you are a police officer, I very seriously doubt that you have been actually tased. Electric stun guns are NOT tasers.
I just spoke to the latest class of cadets when after they got tased. Not a SINGLE one thought it was no big deal. In fact, they all thought it was far WORSE than they expected.
Re: your last bit, existentially quantified statements don't win arguments. It is just stupid.
@ManifoldSky How about we try to give people the benefit of the doubt...i know the difference between a taser and a stun gun and I was tased with a TASER issued by the state of Oklahoma for local law enforcement. The taser hurts a lot don't get me wrong...but as soon as they let go of the trigger the pain is done. No big deal! Sounds to me like those cadets might have exagerrated a tad bit but I guess different people have different tolerances for pain... like the 17 yr old girl who got it too!
First, good job avoiding the central issues. What difference does it make if you were tased? Agan, logical fail. Please point to a single place where I ever discussed the pain as a mitigating factor in taser use. You are engaging in a straw man argument. Also, you might want to review the law regarding taser use, and the companies own guidelines. In addition to having no logical argument, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
@ManifoldSky You know what I'm not going to pretend that I have obtained a higher form of education but I do know one thing if I were an officer of the law and had to choose between whipping out the taser on someone, or getting hands-on and risk breaking an arm causing a lawsuit...I'm going to tase the hell out of her. If the girl was smart she would have listened to the police. I'm not trying to attack you or your education. So to dumb it down for the common folk you're one smart A**hole. lol
And as already pointed out, that excuse could just as easily be applied to a traffic stop on a 90 year old woman. You never know if she has a gun. In fact, it would apply to EVERY interaction between the public and law enforcement.
Also, why are you commenting on a specific situation that you know nothing about?
Call me what you want, it doesn't make you any less an ignoramus.
You have no idea what you're talking about, little man. Sure there's a million things that could be done....but, why would anyone spend years learning your little man techniques for combat when 1.) cops aren't here to engage you in combat, dumbass and 2.) the Taser requires much less training to attain some degree of proficiency. Both methods result in someone being taken into custody after being arrested, or while being arrested. You're cute n' all but, leave the thinking to the adults.
1) Why bother to comment unless you've actually read the others? Nothing new here.
2) I most certainly DO know what I'm talking about. Not only did I help teach this very technique at a local police academy, this technique has been used by the Tokyo Police department for almost a century.
3) The amount of training required for Taser use is immaterial, especially in light of recent scientific and medical studies backing up claims of Taser-related deaths, and pending law suits.
And since you are throwing around the ad hominem, you are in no position to be casting aspersions on other's intelligence. First, it is "there ARE a million," not "there's".
More importantly, these are not "techniques for combat," they are restriction techniques designed for arrest.
And while there may be a million things that could have been done, one of them was NOT Tasering, in this instance.
All I saw is how to get one arm behind the back. You can still resist a great deal with the other arm. Any one who knows wrestling are other ground fighting techniques can over come this and regain the upper hand. Out on the field you have no idea as to the level of fighting training a person has when you are trying to restrain or arrest. Tasers can weaken the indivdual's will to fight so the officer can restrain with little to no fighting. Protest the arrest in a court room not in the field.
Good luck with that. It is a reverse near side arm bar to Kimura. Once set, no amount of ground fighting skill is going to help you overcome it. That you don't recognize one of the basic moves in jujutsu calls into question your knowledge of ground fighting, and your authority for making such a comment. The technique is from tohojutsu, developed by the founders of what became modern jujutsu. It is utilized by the Tokyo police department routinely.
As to the idea that " Out on the field you have no idea as to the level of fighting training a person has" this has been addressed repeatedly here. By this logic, you should taser everybody you come in contact with. You never know what THEY might be capable of, so you might as well taser them too. Traffic stop? He might be a boxer. Taser. Little old lady asking directions? She might have a knife. Taser.
At some point basic common sense need to take over. That and minimal training standards.
I'm not saying taser everyone. There is common sence in judging who really needs to be and who doesn't. If that old lady pulls out a knife. I would be pulling out my side arm. Not a taser. Knife is a deadly weapon in anyones hands. You use deadly force to combat deadly force.
I'm not saying that I would be able to fight the technique but only having one arm in the back and one free can still break free and regain control. I know this because of how many times I've gotten out of a hold like that in wrestling matches. I've gotten out of many arm bar moves.
@ManifoldSky Tasers are a non lethal weapon. Pepper spray is also a non lethal weapon. A police officer can use either one of these items to take the fight out of those who are defiant. Look I do security for Section 8 housing. Safety of officers is first priority. If you go fist to fist with a combative and defiant person. You are putting yourself at risk. Using this type of weapon is to bring cooperation not for defending yourself. You use your sidearm for deadly responce.
Your comments are a red herring. It has no logical bearing on the discussion what happens "if you go fist to fist with a combative and defiant person." No one is saying you should not use the Taser ever, especially if there is an active altercation. That is not what was happening here.
And please do not quote the use of force continuum to me. The federal guidelines for the UOF continuum, used by most local jurisdictions, are CLEAR that Tasers were inappropriate in this circumstance.
@ManifoldSky Well in the state of Oklahoma. They can be used in a situation like the one in Pittsburgh. They can use it to bring control of a situation. That situation seems out of control to me. I think you need to go by what is allowed per state laws. Since I live in Oklahoma. Tasers are not considered weapons like firearms are. Both Law Enforcement and Citizens can own and carry Tasers here.
Another series of illogical comments. It's totally immaterial they're not considered the same as guns. That's not even under dispute & has nothing to do with the argument. So too the fact that tasers can bring control to a situation. So can shooting people. So what?
Likewise, the fact that officers & citizens alike can carry tasers is also irrelevant. They can also carry guns, so again, so what?
And as UOF rules are local, it makes little difference what the laws are at the state level.
Another series of illogical comments. It's totally immaterial they're not considered the same as guns. That's not even under dispute & has nothing to do with the argument. So too the fact that tasers can bring control to a situation. So can shooting people. So what?
Likewise, the fact that officers & citizens alike can carry tasers is also irrelevant. They can also carry guns, so again, so what?
And as UOF rules are local, it makes little difference what the laws are @ the state level.
@ManifoldSky Why don't you become a police officer. It seems like you want to correct actions done by police officers. You run your mouth off and say oh no those bad police officers are using excessive force. Give it a break already. I'm sure that girl is just fine and still walking and making a living or going to school. We can agree to disagree but you want everyone to argee with you. I don't debate with someone who thinks this way. Quit trying to be the police of the police. Become IA shut up
FTR, you don't appear to know how the procedure works. Here we have a civilian review board, no need for IA. Nor does it make any sense to be a police officer, in order to correct police actions. That's the job of attorneys.
It is a sad state of affairs that you think because no permanent injuries were sustained, no excess for was used.
And, AGAIN, as a former assistant instructor at a local police academy, I do speak w/ some authority.
@ManifoldSky The sad thing here is that you buy into this liberal mindset that is ruining this country. She resisted arrest. Believe me getting tased was the least amount of force that could have been used on her. She could have had broken a bone or two if the officer would have gotten rough with her. He only brought out the taser when she would not cooperate and was resisting arrest. Trainer and beat cop are two different arenas. I know for a fact that done by the book is not followed 100%.
The really sad thins is that you think you should comment on things you don't know anything about. She was no resisting. An officer was chasing someone for something it was later proved never happened. She was in the way, so he lifter her glasses and sprayed directly in the eyes with OC. She was writhing on the ground when tased. If you are a police officer (which I doubt) you most likely have been sprayed, and therefore know that you are incapable of complying with commands.
There are numerous things they could have done, and they also would have been excessive. What is your point?
Of course trainer and cop are different. I worked with both regularly. You are clearly neither, and comment on situations with no information at all.
As for your uneducated political crap, if the liberal mindset was ruining this country, it would have one so already, as it is hardly a new phenomenon.
But yeah, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicaid, the GI bill, evil.
@ManifoldSky Well I believe you need to do some history research. Back in the 60's cops used to beat uncoopertive protesters with batons. This practice was okay and acceptible back then. This what I'm talking about. This country of ours is turning into a bunch of cry babies and whine, whine, whine. If I had a choice between a baton or taser. I would choose the taser any day. Tasers weren't around in those days. Satistics prove fewer injuries to both officers and citizens when tasers are used.
@ManifoldSky I guess you are too brainwashed with liberalism to figure this one out so I guess there is nothing more I can do for you in telling you what is true. I guess the videos I saw where cops were beating protesters back in the 60's was somehow doctored when the technology wasn't around to do the doctoring. I guess you must be plugged into MSNBC or as Mark Levin calls it MSLSD. See how well this country is in the next 20 years when Americans are the illegal aliens and not the citizens.
Again, I'll pit my scores and grades in REAL history classes against your disinformation any day.
You really have NO idea what you are talking about.
Nor did I even remotely IMPLY that the beatings weren't real you moron, what i said was that the beating are what led to the passage of the civil rights legislation that followed. People were universally disgusted by it.
Try Hooked on Phonics, it might make adult conversation easier for you.
@ManifoldSky However before the passing of Civil Rights Act it was okay for police officers to act in this manner when it comes to uncooportive protesters. That is what I was referring to when I brought up that it was okay for them to do the beating of protesters. Look the Civil Rights Act didn't come into play until the earily 1960's. We had nearly 200 years prior to that. So the act isn't that old compaired to our nation's founding. I don't like the beatings but tasing in not beating.
Again, you just don't know history very well. During the 30s there were huge uprisings by disgruntled workers. There were the various communist parties (quite popular back then) the American Labor Party, the Farmer-Labour Party, and others. In the ensuing riots, police, often controlled and supplemented by paid thugs, beat the protesters, often killing them. National uproar over this almost toppled the government.
Why attempt historical arguments when you just don't know it very well?
In fact, this country EXISTS because of it. Prior to the Revolution, the majority of people sided with the British, as loyal British subjects. It was largely due to the treatment of the citizens by British regulars that arrived to quell the unrest that the tide turned in favour of succession, fomenting a national spirit of rebellion.
World history is replete with other examples.
Please, if you're going to make historical arguments, at least do the courtesy of knowing some.
@ManifoldSky Don't try to put tasing in the same boat as beating is what I'm saying. Finally if you have to throw personal attacks at a person with whom you are debating with. It only shows that your side is weak and that you have to do that to make your case look and sound better. I never once called you an idiot. Keep it clean or this is over with. I will not put up with a person who has this level of hostility when it comes to debating.
I know full well what you're saying, you're just wrong. Again, your grasp of history is tenuous at best, yet you attempt to make ridiculous historical arguments based on ignorance.
As to the ad hominem, it is you who started that buddy. You just can't take what you dish out. The difference, however, is that I didn't make it my argument. Ergo, it is not a reflection of the strength of my position. You however, made personal attacks the foundation of your point. Reread your posts.
Really, that's what you have? Liberal mindset? If it was ruining this country, it would have done so 400 years ago, since it was this very liberal mindset that founded this country.
And again, please do not comment on things you know NOTHING about. You have NO clue what happened in this situation. I live here, know the girl, and work with various local police.
You, however, apparently know little about this situation, and even less about police procedure and UoF.
@ManifoldSky I do not know if your are a police officer or a security officer. If you are not then I think that before you speak. You need to walk in those shoes. Especially since your sidearm can be used against you. Many of officers have been killed in the line of duty with their own duty weapon. That is all the threat I need to make sure the fight is taken out of a defiant person who is unwilling to cooperate. You don't know that they will not go for your weapon now do you?
Your right alot of departments use DOJ giudelines but they are not required to. As long as thier continuum is not breaking federal or state laws they can do what they want. which is why alot of departments have Tasers very low on thier continuums. most departments including mine authorize use of Tasers for non compliance to lawful commands and empty hand defensive resistance, such as laying in the street refusing to move.And please tell me why you made this video if there was no reason to arrest
Make up your mind, First you claim that most departments don't use the DOJ guidelines, then you claim many do. This does nothing for your credibility in this regard.
You are just plain mistaken in your analysis. While they may be CRIMINALLY protected by following state and federal penal code, they are NOT civilly protected.
It is irresponsible for tasers to be so low on the UOFC, and your department is one good lawsuit away from bankrupting your community.
As for that last bit, I have now explained it to you three times. It is getting tiresome.
That there was no reason to arrest her didn't prevent her from BEING arrested. In addition, the procedures used to arrest her were unprofessional, and, quite frankly, incompetent. As such, I can criticize Officer Muoio on several grounds, including his rational for arrest as well as his arrest mechanics. I do the one in the video and the other in the Comments.
Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong. Stating it does not make it so. If you read the UOF manual for ust about any law enforcement agency, it SPECIFICALLY references the DOJ guidelines. They are often copied from them verbatim.
Of course they are written to comply with federal and state penal codes, so that their officers do not themselves get arrested. But such codes offer NO insight into the wide range of possible procedures available. They only give very broad proscriptions.
No, they don't set them, but they do give legal guidelines; the VAST majority of departments, including the one in Pgh, model their policies after them.
You don't seriously consider your argument sound, do you? Are you claiming police never arrest someone w/o cause?
1) there WAS no reason to arrest her, as pointed out numerous times in this thread,
2) working as a LEO would NOT provide me with ANY useful data regarding litigation.
And FTR, I was as an assistant for a local academy instructor.
You still have not addressed my qeustion. There may have not been a need to arrest her. I dont know i wasnt there before the video started rolling. If you believe there was no reason to arrest her why are you showing people how they should have taken her into custody instead. Do you like telling people how you could do things better than them, or do you just like being a critical of police who dont have days to sit and think of how they should do something.
Because regardless of the NEED to arrest her, they DID arrest her. That being the case, the initial error of her arrest was compounded by poor implementation. Does this really need to be spelled out to you?
As for proper arrest procedure, if it takes them days to figure out what to do in simple cases like this they are incompetent and need to be fired. It is what they are paid for, and what they should be trained to do.
It is only a matter of personal opinion that tasers where the wrong way to go about securing her into custody. Im not saying that it should take them days to think of what to do my point was the decisions they have to make in gray areas with little time are scrutinized and picked apart for months. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is much easier to criticize the action taken than to take action.
It's NOT just a matter of personal opinion, it's a violation of Pittsburgh's own UOF continuum, & a civil rights violation.
It was NOT a grey area. The call was black and white. Police have hidden behind this lame excuse for ages. They benefit from 10s of 1000s of dollars in training to make this call correctly. This training is why one CAN criticize them after the fact. In fact, this ability to criticize is what prevents us from being a police state, something that doesn't seem to concern you.
The DOJ and taser international do not set UOF continuums for departments across the country. If there was no reason to arrest this girl then why did you make this video showing people your "leveraging" technique telling them how they should have used force to arrest her.If you ever worked in the law enforcement field you would know there is much less litigation when tasers are used than when you lay your hands on somebody.
Are tasers used by the police to be an easy way out instead of trying to get a person to comply? saw a vid when the police tased a guy with a broken back, coz he dident comply when they orderd him to get on his belly.
Taser Int.'s OWN guidelines, as well those of the DOJ, CLEARLY state that tasers are to be used ONLY against active resistance that puts the officer in danger of injury. They JUST as clearly state that they are NOT for passive resistance/ simple noncompliance.
Apologists want to bend semantics with word games like "You never know if a person might (fill in the blank.) Not only can this be used to justify ANY use of force, what they fail to realize is disengaging also spares protects the officer.
First, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Depending on where you're hit, it can be intensely painful. While the electricity is flowing, you are not capable of "faking" anything. I would love to see your evidence that she is "clearly exaggerating."
The "studies" you attempt to cite were performed by Taser Int., and, even without the obvious bias, have been routinely discredited. Independent studies have shown a direct correlation with severe injury and death related to taser use.
For those that have never been tasered, it's actually not that bad. The girl in the video is clearly exaggerating to get attention. Some criminals have used this technique to make an attempt at some kind of bogus lawsuit for financial purposes. Studies have shown that periodic exposure to a taser stimulates the central nervous system and helps combat premature aging of the adrenal glands.
Oh, and while you're here, how about you post a link to that ridiculous "study" you claimed shows "that getting tased a couple times / year is actually good for the central nervous system as well as many mid term psychological benefits such as curing depression and borderline personality disorder."
As I stated to you previously, You are posting that BS to the wrong person, as I have a degree in neuroscience.
techniques are imperfect especially when the persons applying them dont spend alot of time training in them as most police dont. i am a certified police officer in Texas and i know that people get hurt because of improper technique due to lack of training. TASERS due pose threat to harm from falls but this subject was on the ground already and though injuries can occur from falls the officer is safer by keeping away from hand to hand confrontations. and it helps prevent future litigation.
This was ALSO already addressed. First, there was no need to taser Dana (the girl in the video) in the first place. According to both DOJ and other's continuum of force rules, as well as Taser, Int. themselves, tasers are NOT indicated for simple passive resistance. By this logic, why not just taser anyone you wish to talk to, just in case?
Nor do they minimize litigation. There is NO data to support this in general, and in this specific case, both Officer Muoio as well as the city were sued.
so you would rather risk breaking someones arm and getting into a hand to hand confrontation with them where the risks are greater for both partys than by getting complience with a taser which is harmless. painful but harmless.
First, simple courtesy calls for reading a thread before commenting. Even cursory reading shows both these issues addressed repeatedly.
Risk of breaking someone's arm? It is a leveraging technique, not a joint lock.
Use of tasers also have risk of physical injury, especially from falls during and after shock. Even the manufacturer admits tasers can cause injury. Several third party studies show worse.
Most importantly, there was NO need to arrest anyone, as the facts in this case later showed.
"It is claimed." By whom please? And to what incident are you referring? Are you a law enforcement officer? Have you applied to be a law enforcement officer? Are you a court recognized expert in the use of force? If so, what court?
If you are going to post, at least bother to see if your questions were already answered. Every one was already addresses AD NAUSEAM, in this thread.
Seroiusly, show some due diligence. I mean, you didn't even bother to find out what incident I am referring to? REALLY? It's not as it is isn't WRITTEN IN THE TITLE OF THIS VIDEO, or anything like that!
I mean, hell, this is a video COMMENT for christ's sake. Is it really all that hard to back trace to the original video?
Yes, their putting their lives on the line EVERY DAY to HEROICLY ensure that no unarmed child goes unshot. Lets all worship these bastards. Or lets pray the Lord delivers the REAL justice to these sadistic sickos. Having a rough job isn't anyone's fault except for the killers and the rapist who their too cowardly to go after, which is why they pick on a 100-pound lady.
If you bothered to waste the three calories, and the two brain cells necessary to read the comments in this thread, you would know that I have helped teach these techniques at a local police academy. So I have already demonstrated these "skills."
And considering that this video is specifically posted to show alternatives to taser use, your last comments border on the idiotic.
And that is being charitable.
Then again, your asinine profile speaks for itself.
Your comments here about police are just as stupid as those who post on the opposite side, that police are authority figures who should be obeyed (what an unAmerican idea) and that one can not judge police actions unless one is a police officer (which is just patently absurd.)
I do not know what you are trying to accomplish by posting such illiterate rantings, but you are doing no one any favours
To whom are you speaking? To me? I am certainly not a "tough guy."
What I am also not is a bigoted, misinformed, stereotyping, knee jerk reactionary who bitches about police just for the sake of bitching. Officer Muoio was wrong in the instance, and is indeed a belligerent ass. You can NOT, however, extrapolate from his behaviour to generic categorizations of police in general (stupid comments from police on this video notwithstanding.)
reenactments are made out of paper. people on meth can stay up for 4 days w/o sleep. other people who have disorientation problems often fight for no reason but to fight. it's easy to turn and subdue someone laying on a mat and willing to participate, but a person that resists is anything but a paper tiger.
What exactly is your point? Are you trying to claim that this technique only works in the gym? Please tell that to the officers of the Tokyo police department, and any number of other departments around the world where these techniques are used as a matter of course.
If you had bothered to read even a small portion of the thread here before posting, you would have known this, as it has been covered over and over, and OVER again.
does tokyo allow police to be sued? They use that process here to keep out of litigation. People claim injuries and the police get sued. The police are constantly up against violence and it is not that easy to subdue. I've also seen some of the the excerpts from the japanese police and maybe they could use a little help too in subduing people.
I've seen excerpt from lots of police departments, and they could use help as well. Again, what is your point?
As for your claims of litigation, you really need to do your research, especially if you are going to post here. Officer Muoio and the City of Pittsburgh were both sued on numerous counts over this incident. Using the taser in NO way ameliorated this. Not to mention that there was NO violence here, so your statement is irrelevant.
My great uncle's best friend was a police officer. The use of the taser is actually safer to the criminal on the receiving end. Using violence such as martial arts can cause grevious injury, dislocated limbs, broken bones etc. It has been proven in a recent study that getting tased a couple times / year is actually good for the central nervous system as well as many mid term psychological benefits such as curing depression and borderline personality disorder.
When one make such a broad characterization, it becomes almost a truism. It is logically pointless. It also is unsupported by the evidence. But that said, the technique discussed here would NOT have caused injury, grevious [sic] or otherwise.
As to that last, utterly absurd bit, please post a citation to this ridiculous study. You are making these rather farcical statements to the wrong person, as I have a degree in neuroscience.
I have been it situations where I have had to do both methods (taser or physical force) to restrain someone. The techniques in this video work great... if your adversary lays there like a wet noodle. But, if they are going to be uncooperative, then things will not go so smooth. Most of my experiences with using leverage tactics and takedowns resulted in the other person getting stitches. Because, they resisted. They didn't do the limp noodle thing.
The fact is, most of the time, when you put hands on someone who is passively resisting, someone ends up hurt. A couple of years ago, I was introduced to the Taser. It is a blessing for both the officer and the suspect. The Taser is very low on the force grid. Most departments carry it next above "verbal non-compliance". When executed properly (barring malfunctions) the officer never has to touch the suspect. So, the officer never gets struck and the bad guy never does, either.
In my experiences with the Taser, we have the suspect checked out by EMS as a precaution. On all of my incidents, the suspect is released by EMS. The person suffered no injuries other than two small holes that get a band-aid.
How can I be so confident the Taser is safe? Because I've been shot with it. Not alligator clips... I took the probes. I know what it's about. Outside of police defensive tactics, I also train in martial arts. Trust me, the Taser is the safest method.
This is just bad logic. In what way does your being shot with a taser indicate it is safe? By this logic, the fact that there are 90 year olds who smoke proves that cigarettes are safe. Using this argument, being the second person up in a game of Russian roulette is safe, as the first person came out fine.
I have no need to trust you. I have my own experience as well as statistical data to draw from. They just don't bear you out for incidents where tasers are used for non-aggressive individuals.
The facts are nothing of the sort. Please cite a single statistic that backs this up. Departments that place taser use this low on the UOF continuum are not even following Taser Internationals, own guidelines, nor those of the DOJ, which clearly state that the taser is for aggressive resistance. More to the point, nationwide departments are moving en masse toward much more restrictive taser use policies due to just such incidents as this.
First, this is not a hypothetical situation, it was an actual one. There is no need to speculate. Dana was being "uncooperative, because she had just been sprayed in the face with Phase IV. Second, this particular technique does not work better when they are limp. In fact, it works better when they are somewhat resistant.
Third, no one is talking about takedowns. Dana was already on the ground.
Besides which, if someone were lying there limp, how exactly are you justifying using the taser?
Let's go over this... I did speak generally or hypothetically, because I wasn't at this situation. I'm guessing, neither were you. You can Monday morning quarterback all you want, but you didn't have to make the decision at the time and place the officer did. I have enough respect that I won't try to make that decision for him. Next, I haven't dealt with anyone that is somewhat resistant. Either they're willing to go to jail or they are not. There is no in-between.
Just because someone is not at a scene does not prevent them from making specific observations to a video of the event. Otherwise it is pointless to comment at all.
Second, although I was not there, I am acquainted with the principal actors, including officer Muoio.
Third, courts of law routinely make judgements on these types of specifics.
I have enough healthy patriotism that I would NEVER simply surrender my right to question a usurping of basic liberties.
I haven't found a video clip on here that shows the video in it's entirety. If I can't see the entire video, then I can't make a judgment. That's like the Nathaniel Jones incident. When the press showed the clip, it looked like the officers were beating him helplessly. When you see the video in it's entirety, you see how he attacked the officers and why they responded the way they did.
Dana was on the ground? Good. But, the officer has to keep her there until she is handcuffed. How are you justified in tasing someone who is resisting by using dead-weight? What does the department policy say? Many departments have a "no-touch" policy. The officer gives a verbal command to submit to an arrest. When the person doesn't comply, they are warned to comply or be tased. When they fail to comply again, the taser is justified.
Cincinnati PD has a no-touch policy, as well as much of the surrounding area. According to a review of the Cincy PD dated February 2007, the DOJ reviewed the policy and incidents of Cincy PD and found it was in compliance.
I don't have published statistics to tell you how many times putting hands on someone results in an injury. What I do have is my experiences, sitting in a hospital with a suspect I've just arrested, washing their blood off of me.
As far as the direction departments are moving in regard to the taser, from what I am observing at meetings, training, communicating with other departments, and research; departments are moving toward the no-touch policy.
Now, taser vs. Russian Roulette? Can we say apples and oranges? Or, apples and gasoline? We don't test our .40 cals by shooting each other.
The video clearly shows she was on the ground. She was in the position indicated in my video.
She was so aggressive Officer Muoio managed to lift her glasses, spray her directly in the face with Phase IV, and place her glasses back on her face. (He has a history of similar incidents.) She then fell to the ground screaming and rolling, at which point he yells at her to roll over onto her stomach. When she instead continues to cry out in pain (as opposed to acting aggressively, he fires his taser.
If this officer acted in this manner ... taking off her glasses, spraying her, and then placing her glasses back on ... and she was that little of a threat ... Why in the world do you think that using leverage tactics that sling her around, risking injury to her, would be justifiable where a taser wouldn't? According to your story, none of his actions are justified. I don't think your tactics would be justified either.
As for Russian Roulette, it is a simple analogy. You claim tasers are safe as proven by the fact that you were tasered once. This is no different than claiming Russian Roulette is safe because you played once and didn't get hurt.
I think if I played Russian Roulette with a gun, and the gun went off, I would probably be dead. However, if I played Russian Roulette with a Taser (except you are to attempt to NOT shoot someone in the head, so I'd have to shoot myself in the leg), I would definitely come out with no more than two little holes in my leg. Sure, it hurts and you have the holes, but there is no injury beyond the equivalent to a paper cut.
The analogy is to your claim that singular experience=proven safety. Seemingly you do not understand Russian Roulette. There's a single bullet in a revolver. You have a 1 in 6 chance, not a 1 in 1 chance.
Re:Officer Muoio's actions, that's exactly the point: his actions weren't justified. He never should have sprayed her in the first place. Having done so, he had no need to taser her. If he absolutely HAD to arrest her after Phase IV, other techniques would have resulted in a far better outcome.
I understand Russian Roulette, but thanks for helping prove it to be a horrible analogy of yours.
If the officer's was not justified in making an arrest, then no option was a good one. Whether it be a takedown, a taser, or kickbox the crap out of her; none were good. But if he was justified in arresting her and she passively resisted, then the taser is justified and a less detrimental option. According to you, he wasn't, so the argument of IF he is takes us back to the hypothetical.
Again, as the analogy was to whether singular events prove general facts, the analogy was a perfect one. Failure of one shot to kill you has no bearing on the game's safety. Likewise, failure of the taser to harm you after your being tasered is irrelevant.
And tasering is NOT justified in passive resistance cases as a general rule. Saying so is absurd. So you have a 5 year old boy having a tantrum after being caught stealing gum. According to you one would be justified tasering him.
Generally speaking, if a person is passively resistant, the taser is lower on the use of force grid and an option far less likely to result in injury. It is also considered justified by most departments - including Cincinnati PD; Utah Highway Patrol; Boynton Beach PD, FL; to name a few agencies that have been challenged and won in tasing incidents. It is considered justified by Taser International and the Department of Justice.
I went back six pages and the question wasn't answered. So, for those just now joining in the read and have more to do with their lives than read your dialogue in it's entirety... Are you now or have you ever been a sworn law enforcement officer? I'm guessing no... based on the garbage you have displayed.
Doing otherwise, simply surrendering critical thinking and judgment because a cop tells you a story is foolish and dangerous.
Re: your last comment, it implies you've not been involved in many protests, as limited resistance is the primary modus operandi.
More importantly in this SPECIFIC case, her "non-compliance" was due primarily to having been just sprayed in the face with Phase IV. Often, the ability to comply w/ verbal commands is compromised, to say the least. I.e., limited resistance.
I haven't had hundreds of tree-huggers that I've had to arrest, no. But, I have had a few. And, from experience, I will tell you that a taser would have been nice when it wasn't available to me on most of those people. The ones that had to get checked out at the hospital, wouldn't have had to, if I had a taser.
Question: Why was she sprayed?
Have you ever worn a badge? Judging by your comments and posts, I'm guessing no.
You apparently haven't read most of my posts, as this is discussed numerous times, including the fact that it is irrelevant. Claiming it is is a logical fallacy.
As to why she was sprayed, Officer Muoio was after a male who "supposedly" assaulted a Fox camera man, breaking his camera. This was later show to be a lie, as the camera was used for the rest of the event, and its footage showed that 1) he was not assaulted and 2) it was not done by the one Officer Muoio CLAIMED he witnessed doing it.
And you would have been equally as at fault as Officer Muoio. Since she was not presenting any physical threat, taser use of any kind, including drive-stunning, was uncalled for.
Besides which, contact stunning a downed individual who has just been sprayed in the face with Phase IV has almost 0% chance of achieving any sort of compliance at all. In fact, you are much more likely to make the situation worse. Most people's response to localized intense pain, especially when deprived of sight, is NOT to listen to verbal commands and passively comply. Rather, it is to instinctively, and often aggressively, move away from the source of the pain, using any means necessary.
No, actually tasing without a cartridge is "Drive Stunning". The cartridge isn't wet. And when you drive stun someone, you are driving the weapon into them. Don't worry, before I took the class I thought they were saying dry stun, too.
You have no basis for your claim that I am lacking in experience. Not that it matters. Your logic is fallacious. I what way would me being tasered effect the situation, either as regards the tasering of Dana, or what could have been done as an alternative?
How would me having tasered someone have any effect on whether officer Muoio was justified in this situation, or whether other techniques were more appropriate?
None of this has ANY relevance whatsoever to ANY of the issues involved.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying what the officer did was necessary. I am saying that your positions are lacking in experience. If you tell me you've been tasered, you've tasered someone, you've arrested a resistant subject, etc., I'd be saying something different. You seem passionate in the subject, which is a good thing. If you'd like more information, you can do a Google search on taser and use of force and see how many cases are supporting this type of usage.
And I am fully capable of doing a internet search, thank you very much. You might wish to do the same as there is very little that supports your contentions. I called for you earlier to post citations. It is telling that you have both failed to do so, and at the same time attempt misdirection by requesting that I search for data invalidating my contentions. While there are any number of such cases, you will be hard pressed to find much corroboration in these for your position.
My point on communicative diseases is not to suggest a "once and for all" taser useage, but to note that this is a real world element to consider - that hands-on is not without lasting consequences. Don't get me wrong, I value you having an opinion, and it has its place in a community's notions of what an officer should and should not do. But I feel it would be better served, as would departments in your community, if it would include more actual experience.
I'm fully aware of issues surrounding things like Hep/AIDS. It is a bogus argument. Again, this justification can be used in any situation, and calls for police to taser on sight.
This is not a hypothetical situation. It is an event that actually occurred. I worked for or around many of the officers present. It is well known, both in the local community as well as the department that the officer involved, S. Muoio, is a hot head. Many officers shudder when they see him saunter onto a scene.
I DO know the facts of the case. I am not hypothesizing. I also know the court cases involved, including the many lawsuits against the city that resulted.
Tactically, that is pretty much the only real time the Taser is best used, as it is not a weapon ideally suited for someone aggressively resisting (i.e. attacking an officer). You need to review your Taser Intl. and DOJ standards - if you are a law enforcement officer. If you are a civilian, it is doubtful you were certified and train in the Taser use. Additionally, major courts across the country have sided that Taser use in this type of situation is not excessive force, but reasonable.
That is absurd. Tactically the taser works quite well for AGGRESSIVELY resisting subjects. In fact, this is what it was designed for. I am sorry but you are simply misinformed. I have the DOJ UOF continuum right in front of me, as well as the published guidelines from Taser Int.
You are just flat out wrong.
Simply making a declarative statement does not make it so. Case in point, courts certainly have NOT been "siding" this way, whatever that means. Please cite a single similar case.
Officers have to adapt tactics to the moment and time they finds themselves in. No officer worth his/her salt would ever suggest a tactic is or can be universally applied - not even cross-culturally applied.
Also: Departments are moving away from Use of Force models, as they were found to not translate into real-world considerations. That said, at least in California, the woman was considered actively resisting when she failed to follow instructions. She was arrestable for that alone.
The person doing so is you. This situation clearly did NOT call for taser use, yet you continue to justify it with vague generalities, what ifs, larger subjects, and other things not present in this situation.
You purposely confuse issues. 1) There's no cross-cultural issue here, or even relevant to UOF dictates. 2) Comments re:moving away from UOF models are bogus, w/ no legal standing. 3) Well-formed UOF continua translate very well to real world situations. 4) Who's talking about California
Whatever the officer "could" have done, these things all have to be considered. In regards to what the officer "should" have done, that is not for Monday-morning quarter backs to decide, but for those folks in the field, in the "right then and there" of that incident. This is a subtle difference, between "could" and "should," but one that should not be ignored. (End of Comment.)
Again, this technique is used IN THE FIELD regularly. It is in the standard curriculum of the Tokyo Police, and many other departments around the world. I'm a former assistant instructor at a local academy; it was taught there. So your dojo vs reality argument is moot.
Likewise your points re: tasers. Regardless of your claim, UOF policy, from both the DOJ and Taser International SPECIFICALLY indicate taser usage for actively resisting subjects ONLY, not as a method of convenience.
It is taught at police academies around the world - no doubt. Yet, while noting academies still present only controlled environments, this does not mean it is as easy to pull off as you suggested. The truth of the matter is that it is not. Additionally, Japan is a totally different environment than the United States, let alone Pittsburg. The chance of mob violence is low in Japan, the chance of battery on an officer is low, the chance of suspects being armed with handguns is low, etc.
Your argument about Hep/AIDS is faulty. With this rationale, cops should taser on sight.
Besides, arguments about what ifs or larger actors are irrelevent. The reality is what it is; not it "could've been." UOF is dictated by the situation; that situation did not indicate Taser use.
As for arguments about arm-chair quarterbacking, of course I can. IAB, civilian review boards, and courts do it all the time. Your claim that law enforcement should operate unfettered is as scary as it is absurd.
Not sure how this could ever be addressed in the dojo as this never really comes to the forefront of ones thinking until you learn you and the suspect have just bled all over each other and the suspect has been diagnosed with Hepatitis and you have to go home to your pregnant spouse and/or your infant daughter after you and the suspect are medically cleared from the hospital, the suspect is booked, and the officer finishes his/her shift.(Continues in next post.)
Another thing one has to consider in real life applications is that people have contagious diseases like Hepatitis, AIDS, Tuberculosis, etc., and this presents a whole other realm of considerations when going hands-on, up close and personal, against non-compliant individuals.(Continues in next post.)
In contrast, hands-on techniques almost always result in injuries for both the suspect and the officer. This is another difference between street and dojo, between non-compliant individuals and compliant training partners folks in the field know this, both suspects and officers.(Continues in next post.)
If you want to see how even leverage has its working limitations, try the same technique on someone that is over a foot taller than you and has between 50 and 100 lbs on you. Do this, and you not only see if a technique works, but if you work as a martial artist which is much more important in my opinion.
As for this woman in the video, statistically, you should know, Taser uses often result in fewer injuries to both the suspect and the officer - in fact, almost none are ever manifested.
In other words, the training culture of the dojo, which is firmly housed in compliance, guarantees that fulcrums will remain in place, and this in turn makes leverage techniques appear much more effective than they ever really are in the street. If you want some insight into the contrary, into the truth of in-field leverage technques, rather than have someone use their strength against you to see if something works, just have them wiggle all over the place.(Continuing in next post.)
Folks that utilize techniques in the field, outside of the controlled environments of the dojo, know that the dojo versions of techniques appear "obvious" and "easy to pull off" because training partners in the dojo most times lie perfectly still when a technique is being practiced on them.(Continuing in next post.)
That's a lot to ask for - asking for slower and weaker opponents who are always at a greater disadvantage than you are.
In other words, it is never as easy as one may think it is to arrest a non-compliant person even one that is much smaller than you. Therefore, it is a huge mistake to think otherwise and/or to lead folks into believing otherwise. (Continuing in next post.)
Being able to adapt a lever arm to a moving fulcrum requires an extremely high level of skill - most times higher than the skill possessed by an officer and/or a martial arts instructor. Yet, without this skill it becomes next to impossible to apply leverage "effortless" techniques against a resisting and/or non-compliant person. What is most often needed, when no such skill is present, is for one to be stronger and faster, with better balance, etc., than the suspect.(Continuing in next post.)
Additionally, for leverage points to work, it is very important that fulcrum points stay in place (i.e. in the proper working relationship to the lever being utilized). However, in real life, at the speed of life, fulcrum points never stay in place. Even the lightest, weakest, most intoxicated person, can remove fulcrums from the working relationship it is supposed to have with the lever arm. (Continuing in next post.)
Leverage and Strength is basically the same thing. That is to say, there are working limits to both, which means the bigger and stronger the suspect is, the bigger and stronger the officer will have to be to get this type of leverage to work under the same conditions with the same effects.(Continuing in next post.)
it doesnt matter what cops do, if they even just grab someone, some dumbass somewhere will yell " abuse of power!" our country is getting more feminized every day.
Why do people feel free to make categorical statements as if they require no support? Of course it matters what cops do. But one reason bad cop behaviour continues is that in the majority of situations most improper behaviour goes unsanctioned, exactly the opposite of what you claim.
You fail to state what exactly you mean by "feminized."
If you mean more prone to think rationally about an issue rather than just beat it with a nightstick to see if that fixes it then I fail to see the problem.
Let us keep in mind that in order to carry a taser you have to be tased...just like carrying oleocapsicum resin (pepper spray). So the officers know what they are doing to the "suspect" because they have had a dose of it themselves. Improving handcuffs won't do a damn thing to keep people from being tased because you still have to put them on the suspect putting yourself in some type of harms way. Lesson learned here Dont resist arrest and you wont be tasered, Dumbass!
What's your point? Knowing the distress caused does not necessarily have an effect on readiness to inflict it. By your argument, tasers should be used for all arrests, because it is inherently dangerous.
As for "lessons learned," you really aren't in a position to speak. Dana had all charges dismissed. The one who needs to learn a lesson is Sam Muoio, the officer involved. He's racked up quite an array of civilian complaints. I know several officers who know him. He is not well regarded.
TASERS are BARBARIC -- A CRUEL, bizarre, primitive, torturous tool mis-used as a means to gain control of someone. What we really need are more efficient hand cuffs and other confining methods; not TASERS. Hand-cuffs haven't improved since Houdini. Tasering is wrong. In 20 years we will look back on them like we look back now on death by electric chair and public HANGINGS. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT SHALL BE PROHIBITED.
Taser are not barbaric, they help the police to take in to custody dangerous people without deadly force. What should the do if a killer wont comply? Let them go because "oh it so barbaric"?
Your an idiot tazers are a last resort so if theres one copper aganist a murderer who happens to be a body builder and hes swinging punches hes surposed to tackel them by hand oh and by the way i have seen severly druged up suspects stand up to a tazer before
Where to begin? First, while tasers are not a last resort. Firearms are a last resort. Get your facts straight instead of talking out of your ass. Second, what does your example have to do with anything. No one said there aren't bad people in the world, or that being a police officer can be dangerous. That is irrelevant to the current discussion. Certainly the girl in the protest march that prompted my post was neither threatening, nor attacking the officers. She was also not a body builder.
Hmmmm im talking out of my ass then could you expain to me why you have used but one example of a tazar being used unproperly and used it to explain why tazars should not be used at all
You clearly have no concept of subjective probability in order to understand that it is not as simple as your misleading video dictates, you have based your statement on there being *multiple officers, that learning martial arts is easy, that you were a witness to the events you discribe)
If you had bothered to follow the thread you would know that this is a response to a PARTICULAR event. I am not making comments on tasers in general. I have no problems with tasers when used appropriately.
You make many unwarranted assumptions. There WERE over 20 officers there, many mounted, learning martial arts is easy, and people who find if hard shouldn't be police officers; lastly, I live and work in the area in question.
"Oh and if your[sic] going to be stuck up your own arse this isnt your page it belongs to You Tube you did agree to reading the agreement when you registered did you ?"
Leaving aside the tortured sentence construction, I have to wonder if YOU read the TOS. While the site belongs to YouTube, this page is most certainly mine, and I own ALL copyrights. It is NOT YouTube's.
Oh, and if you're going to call people idiots on my page, you can at least bother to learn the difference between the words "your" and "you're." And what a period is.
Oh and if your going to be stuck up your own arse this isnt your page it belongs to You Tube you did agree to reading the agreement when you registered did you ?
Did you? Better check the TOS again, Kevin. While the site belongs to YouTube, the page most certainly belongs to me. I retain ALL copyright to anything I posted her.
yeah lets see you employ these strategic techniques in the heat of a crime when there are dozens of people around you screaming and resisting arrest. Brute force causes more trama and harm than being tased. I would rather get tased than attacked by a cop, but hey, I would never be the FUCKING DUMBASS getting told do do something by a cop or i will get tased, and not do it.
I bet he isn't too happy when those teqhniques of his snap somebody's arm. I've been tased, and it isn't pain that's the worst, it's just that you completely black out for a short amount of time, and feel all gooey afterwards. I believe it's more efficient than this arm-twisting stuff.
It's interesting that this guy wants to demonstrate techniques on a cooperative person. I'm sure these techniques work well, on paper. But when it comes to real life, you might as well plan on something going wrong.
Yo, AMPS are what kills you not volts. Tasers have less than one AMP. I think of it like when you sign for your license you're required to giving an alcohol test upon request..
In other words.. if you run from the police, or you pose threat to a police officer, or other citizen yo ass may or may not get tased.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Amps (not AMPS) can only kill you if there's enough voltage to overcome skin resistance. Amps without voltage is harmless.
You also do NOT consent to being alcohol tested when you sign your license. They can detain you if you refuse, but it is not for refusing, it is for suspected DUI. Without the test, you can't prove you aren't drunk.
Finally, running from police is most certainly NOT an indication for taser use. Definitely not for "other citizen," whatever that means.
You know what I've been tased three times for fun....what's the big freakin deal??? Everybody who is saying we shouldn't use tasers sound like a bunch of whiney vajayjays to me...Tasers are not as bad as everyone thinks...take a shot and then do some talkin if you die then...well...i guess you won that argument
lilhoss2130 1 year ago
@lilhoss2130
First, try a course in basic logic before you declare yourself the victor of anything.
Unless you are a police officer, I very seriously doubt that you have been actually tased. Electric stun guns are NOT tasers.
I just spoke to the latest class of cadets when after they got tased. Not a SINGLE one thought it was no big deal. In fact, they all thought it was far WORSE than they expected.
Re: your last bit, existentially quantified statements don't win arguments. It is just stupid.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky How about we try to give people the benefit of the doubt...i know the difference between a taser and a stun gun and I was tased with a TASER issued by the state of Oklahoma for local law enforcement. The taser hurts a lot don't get me wrong...but as soon as they let go of the trigger the pain is done. No big deal! Sounds to me like those cadets might have exagerrated a tad bit but I guess different people have different tolerances for pain... like the 17 yr old girl who got it too!
lilhoss2130 1 year ago
@lilhoss2130
First, good job avoiding the central issues. What difference does it make if you were tased? Agan, logical fail. Please point to a single place where I ever discussed the pain as a mitigating factor in taser use. You are engaging in a straw man argument. Also, you might want to review the law regarding taser use, and the companies own guidelines. In addition to having no logical argument, you simply don't know what you are talking about.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky You know what I'm not going to pretend that I have obtained a higher form of education but I do know one thing if I were an officer of the law and had to choose between whipping out the taser on someone, or getting hands-on and risk breaking an arm causing a lawsuit...I'm going to tase the hell out of her. If the girl was smart she would have listened to the police. I'm not trying to attack you or your education. So to dumb it down for the common folk you're one smart A**hole. lol
lilhoss2130 1 year ago
@lilhoss2130
And as already pointed out, that excuse could just as easily be applied to a traffic stop on a 90 year old woman. You never know if she has a gun. In fact, it would apply to EVERY interaction between the public and law enforcement.
Also, why are you commenting on a specific situation that you know nothing about?
Call me what you want, it doesn't make you any less an ignoramus.
Or any less wrong.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
You have no idea what you're talking about, little man. Sure there's a million things that could be done....but, why would anyone spend years learning your little man techniques for combat when 1.) cops aren't here to engage you in combat, dumbass and 2.) the Taser requires much less training to attain some degree of proficiency. Both methods result in someone being taken into custody after being arrested, or while being arrested. You're cute n' all but, leave the thinking to the adults.
okwire 1 year ago
@okwire
1) Why bother to comment unless you've actually read the others? Nothing new here.
2) I most certainly DO know what I'm talking about. Not only did I help teach this very technique at a local police academy, this technique has been used by the Tokyo Police department for almost a century.
3) The amount of training required for Taser use is immaterial, especially in light of recent scientific and medical studies backing up claims of Taser-related deaths, and pending law suits.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky
And since you are throwing around the ad hominem, you are in no position to be casting aspersions on other's intelligence. First, it is "there ARE a million," not "there's".
More importantly, these are not "techniques for combat," they are restriction techniques designed for arrest.
And while there may be a million things that could have been done, one of them was NOT Tasering, in this instance.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
All I saw is how to get one arm behind the back. You can still resist a great deal with the other arm. Any one who knows wrestling are other ground fighting techniques can over come this and regain the upper hand. Out on the field you have no idea as to the level of fighting training a person has when you are trying to restrain or arrest. Tasers can weaken the indivdual's will to fight so the officer can restrain with little to no fighting. Protest the arrest in a court room not in the field.
saved03 1 year ago
Good luck with that. It is a reverse near side arm bar to Kimura. Once set, no amount of ground fighting skill is going to help you overcome it. That you don't recognize one of the basic moves in jujutsu calls into question your knowledge of ground fighting, and your authority for making such a comment. The technique is from tohojutsu, developed by the founders of what became modern jujutsu. It is utilized by the Tokyo police department routinely.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
As to the idea that " Out on the field you have no idea as to the level of fighting training a person has" this has been addressed repeatedly here. By this logic, you should taser everybody you come in contact with. You never know what THEY might be capable of, so you might as well taser them too. Traffic stop? He might be a boxer. Taser. Little old lady asking directions? She might have a knife. Taser.
At some point basic common sense need to take over. That and minimal training standards.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
I'm not saying taser everyone. There is common sence in judging who really needs to be and who doesn't. If that old lady pulls out a knife. I would be pulling out my side arm. Not a taser. Knife is a deadly weapon in anyones hands. You use deadly force to combat deadly force.
saved03 1 year ago
I'm not saying that I would be able to fight the technique but only having one arm in the back and one free can still break free and regain control. I know this because of how many times I've gotten out of a hold like that in wrestling matches. I've gotten out of many arm bar moves.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
Actually, yes you kind of are. What you are doing is cherry picking, and then using an excuse that can be applied to any and all situations.
And yes, in reality, common sense needs to be employed. Like the sense that the girl was NOT a threat and did not need to be Tasered.
And FTR, while you might escape an arm bar prior to its full application, it is very unlikely you will do so once it is fully applied.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky Tasers are a non lethal weapon. Pepper spray is also a non lethal weapon. A police officer can use either one of these items to take the fight out of those who are defiant. Look I do security for Section 8 housing. Safety of officers is first priority. If you go fist to fist with a combative and defiant person. You are putting yourself at risk. Using this type of weapon is to bring cooperation not for defending yourself. You use your sidearm for deadly responce.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
Your comments are a red herring. It has no logical bearing on the discussion what happens "if you go fist to fist with a combative and defiant person." No one is saying you should not use the Taser ever, especially if there is an active altercation. That is not what was happening here.
And please do not quote the use of force continuum to me. The federal guidelines for the UOF continuum, used by most local jurisdictions, are CLEAR that Tasers were inappropriate in this circumstance.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky Well in the state of Oklahoma. They can be used in a situation like the one in Pittsburgh. They can use it to bring control of a situation. That situation seems out of control to me. I think you need to go by what is allowed per state laws. Since I live in Oklahoma. Tasers are not considered weapons like firearms are. Both Law Enforcement and Citizens can own and carry Tasers here.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
Another series of illogical comments. It's totally immaterial they're not considered the same as guns. That's not even under dispute & has nothing to do with the argument. So too the fact that tasers can bring control to a situation. So can shooting people. So what?
Likewise, the fact that officers & citizens alike can carry tasers is also irrelevant. They can also carry guns, so again, so what?
And as UOF rules are local, it makes little difference what the laws are at the state level.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@saved03
Another series of illogical comments. It's totally immaterial they're not considered the same as guns. That's not even under dispute & has nothing to do with the argument. So too the fact that tasers can bring control to a situation. So can shooting people. So what?
Likewise, the fact that officers & citizens alike can carry tasers is also irrelevant. They can also carry guns, so again, so what?
And as UOF rules are local, it makes little difference what the laws are @ the state level.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky Why don't you become a police officer. It seems like you want to correct actions done by police officers. You run your mouth off and say oh no those bad police officers are using excessive force. Give it a break already. I'm sure that girl is just fine and still walking and making a living or going to school. We can agree to disagree but you want everyone to argee with you. I don't debate with someone who thinks this way. Quit trying to be the police of the police. Become IA shut up
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
Excuse me? Nothing I said invited your comment.
FTR, you don't appear to know how the procedure works. Here we have a civilian review board, no need for IA. Nor does it make any sense to be a police officer, in order to correct police actions. That's the job of attorneys.
It is a sad state of affairs that you think because no permanent injuries were sustained, no excess for was used.
And, AGAIN, as a former assistant instructor at a local police academy, I do speak w/ some authority.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky The sad thing here is that you buy into this liberal mindset that is ruining this country. She resisted arrest. Believe me getting tased was the least amount of force that could have been used on her. She could have had broken a bone or two if the officer would have gotten rough with her. He only brought out the taser when she would not cooperate and was resisting arrest. Trainer and beat cop are two different arenas. I know for a fact that done by the book is not followed 100%.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
The really sad thins is that you think you should comment on things you don't know anything about. She was no resisting. An officer was chasing someone for something it was later proved never happened. She was in the way, so he lifter her glasses and sprayed directly in the eyes with OC. She was writhing on the ground when tased. If you are a police officer (which I doubt) you most likely have been sprayed, and therefore know that you are incapable of complying with commands.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@saved03
There are numerous things they could have done, and they also would have been excessive. What is your point?
Of course trainer and cop are different. I worked with both regularly. You are clearly neither, and comment on situations with no information at all.
As for your uneducated political crap, if the liberal mindset was ruining this country, it would have one so already, as it is hardly a new phenomenon.
But yeah, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicaid, the GI bill, evil.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky Well I believe you need to do some history research. Back in the 60's cops used to beat uncoopertive protesters with batons. This practice was okay and acceptible back then. This what I'm talking about. This country of ours is turning into a bunch of cry babies and whine, whine, whine. If I had a choice between a baton or taser. I would choose the taser any day. Tasers weren't around in those days. Satistics prove fewer injuries to both officers and citizens when tasers are used.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
HA! You're in no position to comment.
Q: How'd you do in actual History class? You know where you learn actual facts not mindless FOX news BS? Because you clearly have very little clue.
Beating people was NOT acceptable back then, that is why non-violent resistance WORKED.
And being that the choice is not "between baton or taser" what is your point? Nice straw man argument, though.
FTR, I'll put my 5/4 on AP History (World and US) against your "knowledge" ANY day! (Let alone college)
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky I guess you are too brainwashed with liberalism to figure this one out so I guess there is nothing more I can do for you in telling you what is true. I guess the videos I saw where cops were beating protesters back in the 60's was somehow doctored when the technology wasn't around to do the doctoring. I guess you must be plugged into MSNBC or as Mark Levin calls it MSLSD. See how well this country is in the next 20 years when Americans are the illegal aliens and not the citizens.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
You're an idiot
Again, I'll pit my scores and grades in REAL history classes against your disinformation any day.
You really have NO idea what you are talking about.
Nor did I even remotely IMPLY that the beatings weren't real you moron, what i said was that the beating are what led to the passage of the civil rights legislation that followed. People were universally disgusted by it.
Try Hooked on Phonics, it might make adult conversation easier for you.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky However before the passing of Civil Rights Act it was okay for police officers to act in this manner when it comes to uncooportive protesters. That is what I was referring to when I brought up that it was okay for them to do the beating of protesters. Look the Civil Rights Act didn't come into play until the earily 1960's. We had nearly 200 years prior to that. So the act isn't that old compaired to our nation's founding. I don't like the beatings but tasing in not beating.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
Again, you just don't know history very well. During the 30s there were huge uprisings by disgruntled workers. There were the various communist parties (quite popular back then) the American Labor Party, the Farmer-Labour Party, and others. In the ensuing riots, police, often controlled and supplemented by paid thugs, beat the protesters, often killing them. National uproar over this almost toppled the government.
Why attempt historical arguments when you just don't know it very well?
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@saved03 Part II
In fact, this country EXISTS because of it. Prior to the Revolution, the majority of people sided with the British, as loyal British subjects. It was largely due to the treatment of the citizens by British regulars that arrived to quell the unrest that the tide turned in favour of succession, fomenting a national spirit of rebellion.
World history is replete with other examples.
Please, if you're going to make historical arguments, at least do the courtesy of knowing some.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky Don't try to put tasing in the same boat as beating is what I'm saying. Finally if you have to throw personal attacks at a person with whom you are debating with. It only shows that your side is weak and that you have to do that to make your case look and sound better. I never once called you an idiot. Keep it clean or this is over with. I will not put up with a person who has this level of hostility when it comes to debating.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
I know full well what you're saying, you're just wrong. Again, your grasp of history is tenuous at best, yet you attempt to make ridiculous historical arguments based on ignorance.
As to the ad hominem, it is you who started that buddy. You just can't take what you dish out. The difference, however, is that I didn't make it my argument. Ergo, it is not a reflection of the strength of my position. You however, made personal attacks the foundation of your point. Reread your posts.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky Social Security and Medicaid are evil. They are both about to go bankrupt. Why is that? That is however for another debate altogether.
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03
Really, that's what you have? Liberal mindset? If it was ruining this country, it would have done so 400 years ago, since it was this very liberal mindset that founded this country.
And again, please do not comment on things you know NOTHING about. You have NO clue what happened in this situation. I live here, know the girl, and work with various local police.
You, however, apparently know little about this situation, and even less about police procedure and UoF.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
@ManifoldSky I do not know if your are a police officer or a security officer. If you are not then I think that before you speak. You need to walk in those shoes. Especially since your sidearm can be used against you. Many of officers have been killed in the line of duty with their own duty weapon. That is all the threat I need to make sure the fight is taken out of a defiant person who is unwilling to cooperate. You don't know that they will not go for your weapon now do you?
saved03 1 year ago
@saved03 This has been responded to ad nauseam here.
ManifoldSky 1 year ago
Comment removed
zenhom1 2 years ago
Your right alot of departments use DOJ giudelines but they are not required to. As long as thier continuum is not breaking federal or state laws they can do what they want. which is why alot of departments have Tasers very low on thier continuums. most departments including mine authorize use of Tasers for non compliance to lawful commands and empty hand defensive resistance, such as laying in the street refusing to move.And please tell me why you made this video if there was no reason to arrest
ninjawarrior00 2 years ago
Make up your mind, First you claim that most departments don't use the DOJ guidelines, then you claim many do. This does nothing for your credibility in this regard.
You are just plain mistaken in your analysis. While they may be CRIMINALLY protected by following state and federal penal code, they are NOT civilly protected.
It is irresponsible for tasers to be so low on the UOFC, and your department is one good lawsuit away from bankrupting your community.
And the words are "a lot" and "you're."
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
As for that last bit, I have now explained it to you three times. It is getting tiresome.
That there was no reason to arrest her didn't prevent her from BEING arrested. In addition, the procedures used to arrest her were unprofessional, and, quite frankly, incompetent. As such, I can criticize Officer Muoio on several grounds, including his rational for arrest as well as his arrest mechanics. I do the one in the video and the other in the Comments.
This was also done in court, when he was sued.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
oh and most departments model thier uof continuums after the laws of the US and state penal codes. not the DOJ plan
ninjawarrior00 2 years ago
Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong. Stating it does not make it so. If you read the UOF manual for ust about any law enforcement agency, it SPECIFICALLY references the DOJ guidelines. They are often copied from them verbatim.
Of course they are written to comply with federal and state penal codes, so that their officers do not themselves get arrested. But such codes offer NO insight into the wide range of possible procedures available. They only give very broad proscriptions.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
No, they don't set them, but they do give legal guidelines; the VAST majority of departments, including the one in Pgh, model their policies after them.
You don't seriously consider your argument sound, do you? Are you claiming police never arrest someone w/o cause?
1) there WAS no reason to arrest her, as pointed out numerous times in this thread,
2) working as a LEO would NOT provide me with ANY useful data regarding litigation.
And FTR, I was as an assistant for a local academy instructor.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
You still have not addressed my qeustion. There may have not been a need to arrest her. I dont know i wasnt there before the video started rolling. If you believe there was no reason to arrest her why are you showing people how they should have taken her into custody instead. Do you like telling people how you could do things better than them, or do you just like being a critical of police who dont have days to sit and think of how they should do something.
ninjawarrior00 2 years ago
Because regardless of the NEED to arrest her, they DID arrest her. That being the case, the initial error of her arrest was compounded by poor implementation. Does this really need to be spelled out to you?
As for proper arrest procedure, if it takes them days to figure out what to do in simple cases like this they are incompetent and need to be fired. It is what they are paid for, and what they should be trained to do.
Your argument here is absurd.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
It is only a matter of personal opinion that tasers where the wrong way to go about securing her into custody. Im not saying that it should take them days to think of what to do my point was the decisions they have to make in gray areas with little time are scrutinized and picked apart for months. Hindsight is always 20/20 and it is much easier to criticize the action taken than to take action.
ninjawarrior00 2 years ago
It's NOT just a matter of personal opinion, it's a violation of Pittsburgh's own UOF continuum, & a civil rights violation.
It was NOT a grey area. The call was black and white. Police have hidden behind this lame excuse for ages. They benefit from 10s of 1000s of dollars in training to make this call correctly. This training is why one CAN criticize them after the fact. In fact, this ability to criticize is what prevents us from being a police state, something that doesn't seem to concern you.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
The DOJ and taser international do not set UOF continuums for departments across the country. If there was no reason to arrest this girl then why did you make this video showing people your "leveraging" technique telling them how they should have used force to arrest her.If you ever worked in the law enforcement field you would know there is much less litigation when tasers are used than when you lay your hands on somebody.
ninjawarrior00 2 years ago
Are tasers used by the police to be an easy way out instead of trying to get a person to comply? saw a vid when the police tased a guy with a broken back, coz he dident comply when they orderd him to get on his belly.
When is it legit for a officer to tase a person?
blidderbla 2 years ago
Taser Int.'s OWN guidelines, as well those of the DOJ, CLEARLY state that tasers are to be used ONLY against active resistance that puts the officer in danger of injury. They JUST as clearly state that they are NOT for passive resistance/ simple noncompliance.
Apologists want to bend semantics with word games like "You never know if a person might (fill in the blank.) Not only can this be used to justify ANY use of force, what they fail to realize is disengaging also spares protects the officer.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
First, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Depending on where you're hit, it can be intensely painful. While the electricity is flowing, you are not capable of "faking" anything. I would love to see your evidence that she is "clearly exaggerating."
The "studies" you attempt to cite were performed by Taser Int., and, even without the obvious bias, have been routinely discredited. Independent studies have shown a direct correlation with severe injury and death related to taser use.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
For those that have never been tasered, it's actually not that bad. The girl in the video is clearly exaggerating to get attention. Some criminals have used this technique to make an attempt at some kind of bogus lawsuit for financial purposes. Studies have shown that periodic exposure to a taser stimulates the central nervous system and helps combat premature aging of the adrenal glands.
TheFripper 2 years ago
Oh, and while you're here, how about you post a link to that ridiculous "study" you claimed shows "that getting tased a couple times / year is actually good for the central nervous system as well as many mid term psychological benefits such as curing depression and borderline personality disorder."
As I stated to you previously, You are posting that BS to the wrong person, as I have a degree in neuroscience.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
techniques are imperfect especially when the persons applying them dont spend alot of time training in them as most police dont. i am a certified police officer in Texas and i know that people get hurt because of improper technique due to lack of training. TASERS due pose threat to harm from falls but this subject was on the ground already and though injuries can occur from falls the officer is safer by keeping away from hand to hand confrontations. and it helps prevent future litigation.
ninjawarrior00 2 years ago
This was ALSO already addressed. First, there was no need to taser Dana (the girl in the video) in the first place. According to both DOJ and other's continuum of force rules, as well as Taser, Int. themselves, tasers are NOT indicated for simple passive resistance. By this logic, why not just taser anyone you wish to talk to, just in case?
Nor do they minimize litigation. There is NO data to support this in general, and in this specific case, both Officer Muoio as well as the city were sued.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
so you would rather risk breaking someones arm and getting into a hand to hand confrontation with them where the risks are greater for both partys than by getting complience with a taser which is harmless. painful but harmless.
ninjawarrior00 2 years ago
First, simple courtesy calls for reading a thread before commenting. Even cursory reading shows both these issues addressed repeatedly.
Risk of breaking someone's arm? It is a leveraging technique, not a joint lock.
Use of tasers also have risk of physical injury, especially from falls during and after shock. Even the manufacturer admits tasers can cause injury. Several third party studies show worse.
Most importantly, there was NO need to arrest anyone, as the facts in this case later showed.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
your just a dirty slut
dmbfan07cb 2 years ago
And you're a lousy speller.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
I like windows
dmbfan07cb 2 years ago
And non sequiturs, apparently
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
obviously he knew more than all them cops combined did
rustedromeo 2 years ago
"It is claimed." By whom please? And to what incident are you referring? Are you a law enforcement officer? Have you applied to be a law enforcement officer? Are you a court recognized expert in the use of force? If so, what court?
aikicop1 2 years ago
If you are going to post, at least bother to see if your questions were already answered. Every one was already addresses AD NAUSEAM, in this thread.
Seroiusly, show some due diligence. I mean, you didn't even bother to find out what incident I am referring to? REALLY? It's not as it is isn't WRITTEN IN THE TITLE OF THIS VIDEO, or anything like that!
I mean, hell, this is a video COMMENT for christ's sake. Is it really all that hard to back trace to the original video?
Jeeze.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
Did the Pittsburgh Pigs take a day off from shooting unarmed children in the back?
blazinNAKEDBEERz 2 years ago 3
Yes, their putting their lives on the line EVERY DAY to HEROICLY ensure that no unarmed child goes unshot. Lets all worship these bastards. Or lets pray the Lord delivers the REAL justice to these sadistic sickos. Having a rough job isn't anyone's fault except for the killers and the rapist who their too cowardly to go after, which is why they pick on a 100-pound lady.
TheJazzyMan1988 2 years ago
the girl has good ass and leggs
karxin08 2 years ago
If you bothered to waste the three calories, and the two brain cells necessary to read the comments in this thread, you would know that I have helped teach these techniques at a local police academy. So I have already demonstrated these "skills."
And considering that this video is specifically posted to show alternatives to taser use, your last comments border on the idiotic.
And that is being charitable.
Then again, your asinine profile speaks for itself.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
Your comments here about police are just as stupid as those who post on the opposite side, that police are authority figures who should be obeyed (what an unAmerican idea) and that one can not judge police actions unless one is a police officer (which is just patently absurd.)
I do not know what you are trying to accomplish by posting such illiterate rantings, but you are doing no one any favours
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
To whom are you speaking? To me? I am certainly not a "tough guy."
What I am also not is a bigoted, misinformed, stereotyping, knee jerk reactionary who bitches about police just for the sake of bitching. Officer Muoio was wrong in the instance, and is indeed a belligerent ass. You can NOT, however, extrapolate from his behaviour to generic categorizations of police in general (stupid comments from police on this video notwithstanding.)
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
reenactments are made out of paper. people on meth can stay up for 4 days w/o sleep. other people who have disorientation problems often fight for no reason but to fight. it's easy to turn and subdue someone laying on a mat and willing to participate, but a person that resists is anything but a paper tiger.
wad5859 2 years ago
What exactly is your point? Are you trying to claim that this technique only works in the gym? Please tell that to the officers of the Tokyo police department, and any number of other departments around the world where these techniques are used as a matter of course.
If you had bothered to read even a small portion of the thread here before posting, you would have known this, as it has been covered over and over, and OVER again.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
does tokyo allow police to be sued? They use that process here to keep out of litigation. People claim injuries and the police get sued. The police are constantly up against violence and it is not that easy to subdue. I've also seen some of the the excerpts from the japanese police and maybe they could use a little help too in subduing people.
wad5859 2 years ago
Of course they allow them to be sued.
I've seen excerpt from lots of police departments, and they could use help as well. Again, what is your point?
As for your claims of litigation, you really need to do your research, especially if you are going to post here. Officer Muoio and the City of Pittsburgh were both sued on numerous counts over this incident. Using the taser in NO way ameliorated this. Not to mention that there was NO violence here, so your statement is irrelevant.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
Again, I am fully versed in the issues here, both in general as to force continuum, as well as specifics related to this case.
Pepper spray and taser use were completely contraindicated.
And this technique is also taught be some instructors here. I know, because I helped teach it.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
My great uncle's best friend was a police officer. The use of the taser is actually safer to the criminal on the receiving end. Using violence such as martial arts can cause grevious injury, dislocated limbs, broken bones etc. It has been proven in a recent study that getting tased a couple times / year is actually good for the central nervous system as well as many mid term psychological benefits such as curing depression and borderline personality disorder.
TheFripper 2 years ago
When one make such a broad characterization, it becomes almost a truism. It is logically pointless. It also is unsupported by the evidence. But that said, the technique discussed here would NOT have caused injury, grevious [sic] or otherwise.
As to that last, utterly absurd bit, please post a citation to this ridiculous study. You are making these rather farcical statements to the wrong person, as I have a degree in neuroscience.
ManifoldSky 2 years ago
I have been it situations where I have had to do both methods (taser or physical force) to restrain someone. The techniques in this video work great... if your adversary lays there like a wet noodle. But, if they are going to be uncooperative, then things will not go so smooth. Most of my experiences with using leverage tactics and takedowns resulted in the other person getting stitches. Because, they resisted. They didn't do the limp noodle thing.
katanacop41 3 years ago
The fact is, most of the time, when you put hands on someone who is passively resisting, someone ends up hurt. A couple of years ago, I was introduced to the Taser. It is a blessing for both the officer and the suspect. The Taser is very low on the force grid. Most departments carry it next above "verbal non-compliance". When executed properly (barring malfunctions) the officer never has to touch the suspect. So, the officer never gets struck and the bad guy never does, either.
katanacop41 3 years ago
In my experiences with the Taser, we have the suspect checked out by EMS as a precaution. On all of my incidents, the suspect is released by EMS. The person suffered no injuries other than two small holes that get a band-aid.
How can I be so confident the Taser is safe? Because I've been shot with it. Not alligator clips... I took the probes. I know what it's about. Outside of police defensive tactics, I also train in martial arts. Trust me, the Taser is the safest method.
katanacop41 3 years ago
This is just bad logic. In what way does your being shot with a taser indicate it is safe? By this logic, the fact that there are 90 year olds who smoke proves that cigarettes are safe. Using this argument, being the second person up in a game of Russian roulette is safe, as the first person came out fine.
I have no need to trust you. I have my own experience as well as statistical data to draw from. They just don't bear you out for incidents where tasers are used for non-aggressive individuals.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
The facts are nothing of the sort. Please cite a single statistic that backs this up. Departments that place taser use this low on the UOF continuum are not even following Taser Internationals, own guidelines, nor those of the DOJ, which clearly state that the taser is for aggressive resistance. More to the point, nationwide departments are moving en masse toward much more restrictive taser use policies due to just such incidents as this.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
First, this is not a hypothetical situation, it was an actual one. There is no need to speculate. Dana was being "uncooperative, because she had just been sprayed in the face with Phase IV. Second, this particular technique does not work better when they are limp. In fact, it works better when they are somewhat resistant.
Third, no one is talking about takedowns. Dana was already on the ground.
Besides which, if someone were lying there limp, how exactly are you justifying using the taser?
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Let's go over this... I did speak generally or hypothetically, because I wasn't at this situation. I'm guessing, neither were you. You can Monday morning quarterback all you want, but you didn't have to make the decision at the time and place the officer did. I have enough respect that I won't try to make that decision for him. Next, I haven't dealt with anyone that is somewhat resistant. Either they're willing to go to jail or they are not. There is no in-between.
katanacop41 3 years ago
Yes, let's
Just because someone is not at a scene does not prevent them from making specific observations to a video of the event. Otherwise it is pointless to comment at all.
Second, although I was not there, I am acquainted with the principal actors, including officer Muoio.
Third, courts of law routinely make judgements on these types of specifics.
I have enough healthy patriotism that I would NEVER simply surrender my right to question a usurping of basic liberties.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
I haven't found a video clip on here that shows the video in it's entirety. If I can't see the entire video, then I can't make a judgment. That's like the Nathaniel Jones incident. When the press showed the clip, it looked like the officers were beating him helplessly. When you see the video in it's entirety, you see how he attacked the officers and why they responded the way they did.
katanacop41 3 years ago
Dana was on the ground? Good. But, the officer has to keep her there until she is handcuffed. How are you justified in tasing someone who is resisting by using dead-weight? What does the department policy say? Many departments have a "no-touch" policy. The officer gives a verbal command to submit to an arrest. When the person doesn't comply, they are warned to comply or be tased. When they fail to comply again, the taser is justified.
katanacop41 3 years ago
Cincinnati PD has a no-touch policy, as well as much of the surrounding area. According to a review of the Cincy PD dated February 2007, the DOJ reviewed the policy and incidents of Cincy PD and found it was in compliance.
I don't have published statistics to tell you how many times putting hands on someone results in an injury. What I do have is my experiences, sitting in a hospital with a suspect I've just arrested, washing their blood off of me.
katanacop41 3 years ago
As far as the direction departments are moving in regard to the taser, from what I am observing at meetings, training, communicating with other departments, and research; departments are moving toward the no-touch policy.
Now, taser vs. Russian Roulette? Can we say apples and oranges? Or, apples and gasoline? We don't test our .40 cals by shooting each other.
katanacop41 3 years ago
The video clearly shows she was on the ground. She was in the position indicated in my video.
She was so aggressive Officer Muoio managed to lift her glasses, spray her directly in the face with Phase IV, and place her glasses back on her face. (He has a history of similar incidents.) She then fell to the ground screaming and rolling, at which point he yells at her to roll over onto her stomach. When she instead continues to cry out in pain (as opposed to acting aggressively, he fires his taser.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
If this officer acted in this manner ... taking off her glasses, spraying her, and then placing her glasses back on ... and she was that little of a threat ... Why in the world do you think that using leverage tactics that sling her around, risking injury to her, would be justifiable where a taser wouldn't? According to your story, none of his actions are justified. I don't think your tactics would be justified either.
katanacop41 3 years ago
As for Russian Roulette, it is a simple analogy. You claim tasers are safe as proven by the fact that you were tasered once. This is no different than claiming Russian Roulette is safe because you played once and didn't get hurt.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
I think if I played Russian Roulette with a gun, and the gun went off, I would probably be dead. However, if I played Russian Roulette with a Taser (except you are to attempt to NOT shoot someone in the head, so I'd have to shoot myself in the leg), I would definitely come out with no more than two little holes in my leg. Sure, it hurts and you have the holes, but there is no injury beyond the equivalent to a paper cut.
katanacop41 3 years ago
The analogy is to your claim that singular experience=proven safety. Seemingly you do not understand Russian Roulette. There's a single bullet in a revolver. You have a 1 in 6 chance, not a 1 in 1 chance.
Re:Officer Muoio's actions, that's exactly the point: his actions weren't justified. He never should have sprayed her in the first place. Having done so, he had no need to taser her. If he absolutely HAD to arrest her after Phase IV, other techniques would have resulted in a far better outcome.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
I understand Russian Roulette, but thanks for helping prove it to be a horrible analogy of yours.
If the officer's was not justified in making an arrest, then no option was a good one. Whether it be a takedown, a taser, or kickbox the crap out of her; none were good. But if he was justified in arresting her and she passively resisted, then the taser is justified and a less detrimental option. According to you, he wasn't, so the argument of IF he is takes us back to the hypothetical.
katanacop41 3 years ago
Again, as the analogy was to whether singular events prove general facts, the analogy was a perfect one. Failure of one shot to kill you has no bearing on the game's safety. Likewise, failure of the taser to harm you after your being tasered is irrelevant.
And tasering is NOT justified in passive resistance cases as a general rule. Saying so is absurd. So you have a 5 year old boy having a tantrum after being caught stealing gum. According to you one would be justified tasering him.
Ridiculous.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Generally speaking, if a person is passively resistant, the taser is lower on the use of force grid and an option far less likely to result in injury. It is also considered justified by most departments - including Cincinnati PD; Utah Highway Patrol; Boynton Beach PD, FL; to name a few agencies that have been challenged and won in tasing incidents. It is considered justified by Taser International and the Department of Justice.
katanacop41 3 years ago
And you still haven't answered my question... Have you ever worn a badge? Have you ever been or are you currently a sworn law enforcement officer?
katanacop41 3 years ago
Actually I have already answered that that question multiple times on this thread. The fact that you can't even be bothered to check is telling.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
I went back six pages and the question wasn't answered. So, for those just now joining in the read and have more to do with their lives than read your dialogue in it's entirety... Are you now or have you ever been a sworn law enforcement officer? I'm guessing no... based on the garbage you have displayed.
katanacop41 3 years ago
Doing otherwise, simply surrendering critical thinking and judgment because a cop tells you a story is foolish and dangerous.
Re: your last comment, it implies you've not been involved in many protests, as limited resistance is the primary modus operandi.
More importantly in this SPECIFIC case, her "non-compliance" was due primarily to having been just sprayed in the face with Phase IV. Often, the ability to comply w/ verbal commands is compromised, to say the least. I.e., limited resistance.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
I haven't had hundreds of tree-huggers that I've had to arrest, no. But, I have had a few. And, from experience, I will tell you that a taser would have been nice when it wasn't available to me on most of those people. The ones that had to get checked out at the hospital, wouldn't have had to, if I had a taser.
Question: Why was she sprayed?
Have you ever worn a badge? Judging by your comments and posts, I'm guessing no.
katanacop41 3 years ago
You apparently haven't read most of my posts, as this is discussed numerous times, including the fact that it is irrelevant. Claiming it is is a logical fallacy.
As to why she was sprayed, Officer Muoio was after a male who "supposedly" assaulted a Fox camera man, breaking his camera. This was later show to be a lie, as the camera was used for the rest of the event, and its footage showed that 1) he was not assaulted and 2) it was not done by the one Officer Muoio CLAIMED he witnessed doing it.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Dana was sprayed for not immediately getting out of the way when Muoio attempted to push her out of the way to get to him.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
this is a great video lol but that poor girl getting the bad end of it great vid
EPJCW 3 years ago
Trust me, I've taken the class, the girls enjoy every minute of it, lol!
postmoderntease3 3 years ago
I would have taken the cartridge off and used the drive stun to get her to comply...cartridges cost $20-25
thedemonslain 3 years ago
And you would have been equally as at fault as Officer Muoio. Since she was not presenting any physical threat, taser use of any kind, including drive-stunning, was uncalled for.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Besides which, contact stunning a downed individual who has just been sprayed in the face with Phase IV has almost 0% chance of achieving any sort of compliance at all. In fact, you are much more likely to make the situation worse. Most people's response to localized intense pain, especially when deprived of sight, is NOT to listen to verbal commands and passively comply. Rather, it is to instinctively, and often aggressively, move away from the source of the pain, using any means necessary.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
first off...nice video billy badass...thank god we have people like you
...secondly...tazing without a cartridge is dry tazing..not drive
Axer2043 3 years ago
No, actually tasing without a cartridge is "Drive Stunning". The cartridge isn't wet. And when you drive stun someone, you are driving the weapon into them. Don't worry, before I took the class I thought they were saying dry stun, too.
katanacop41 3 years ago
You have no basis for your claim that I am lacking in experience. Not that it matters. Your logic is fallacious. I what way would me being tasered effect the situation, either as regards the tasering of Dana, or what could have been done as an alternative?
How would me having tasered someone have any effect on whether officer Muoio was justified in this situation, or whether other techniques were more appropriate?
None of this has ANY relevance whatsoever to ANY of the issues involved.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying what the officer did was necessary. I am saying that your positions are lacking in experience. If you tell me you've been tasered, you've tasered someone, you've arrested a resistant subject, etc., I'd be saying something different. You seem passionate in the subject, which is a good thing. If you'd like more information, you can do a Google search on taser and use of force and see how many cases are supporting this type of usage.
senshinone 3 years ago
And I am fully capable of doing a internet search, thank you very much. You might wish to do the same as there is very little that supports your contentions. I called for you earlier to post citations. It is telling that you have both failed to do so, and at the same time attempt misdirection by requesting that I search for data invalidating my contentions. While there are any number of such cases, you will be hard pressed to find much corroboration in these for your position.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
My point on communicative diseases is not to suggest a "once and for all" taser useage, but to note that this is a real world element to consider - that hands-on is not without lasting consequences. Don't get me wrong, I value you having an opinion, and it has its place in a community's notions of what an officer should and should not do. But I feel it would be better served, as would departments in your community, if it would include more actual experience.
senshinone 3 years ago
I'm fully aware of issues surrounding things like Hep/AIDS. It is a bogus argument. Again, this justification can be used in any situation, and calls for police to taser on sight.
This is not a hypothetical situation. It is an event that actually occurred. I worked for or around many of the officers present. It is well known, both in the local community as well as the department that the officer involved, S. Muoio, is a hot head. Many officers shudder when they see him saunter onto a scene.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
I DO know the facts of the case. I am not hypothesizing. I also know the court cases involved, including the many lawsuits against the city that resulted.
Taser use was NOT indicated.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Tactically, that is pretty much the only real time the Taser is best used, as it is not a weapon ideally suited for someone aggressively resisting (i.e. attacking an officer). You need to review your Taser Intl. and DOJ standards - if you are a law enforcement officer. If you are a civilian, it is doubtful you were certified and train in the Taser use. Additionally, major courts across the country have sided that Taser use in this type of situation is not excessive force, but reasonable.
senshinone 3 years ago
That is absurd. Tactically the taser works quite well for AGGRESSIVELY resisting subjects. In fact, this is what it was designed for. I am sorry but you are simply misinformed. I have the DOJ UOF continuum right in front of me, as well as the published guidelines from Taser Int.
You are just flat out wrong.
Simply making a declarative statement does not make it so. Case in point, courts certainly have NOT been "siding" this way, whatever that means. Please cite a single similar case.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Officers have to adapt tactics to the moment and time they finds themselves in. No officer worth his/her salt would ever suggest a tactic is or can be universally applied - not even cross-culturally applied.
Also: Departments are moving away from Use of Force models, as they were found to not translate into real-world considerations. That said, at least in California, the woman was considered actively resisting when she failed to follow instructions. She was arrestable for that alone.
senshinone 3 years ago
The person doing so is you. This situation clearly did NOT call for taser use, yet you continue to justify it with vague generalities, what ifs, larger subjects, and other things not present in this situation.
You purposely confuse issues. 1) There's no cross-cultural issue here, or even relevant to UOF dictates. 2) Comments re:moving away from UOF models are bogus, w/ no legal standing. 3) Well-formed UOF continua translate very well to real world situations. 4) Who's talking about California
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Whatever the officer "could" have done, these things all have to be considered. In regards to what the officer "should" have done, that is not for Monday-morning quarter backs to decide, but for those folks in the field, in the "right then and there" of that incident. This is a subtle difference, between "could" and "should," but one that should not be ignored. (End of Comment.)
senshinone 3 years ago
Again, this technique is used IN THE FIELD regularly. It is in the standard curriculum of the Tokyo Police, and many other departments around the world. I'm a former assistant instructor at a local academy; it was taught there. So your dojo vs reality argument is moot.
Likewise your points re: tasers. Regardless of your claim, UOF policy, from both the DOJ and Taser International SPECIFICALLY indicate taser usage for actively resisting subjects ONLY, not as a method of convenience.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
It is taught at police academies around the world - no doubt. Yet, while noting academies still present only controlled environments, this does not mean it is as easy to pull off as you suggested. The truth of the matter is that it is not. Additionally, Japan is a totally different environment than the United States, let alone Pittsburg. The chance of mob violence is low in Japan, the chance of battery on an officer is low, the chance of suspects being armed with handguns is low, etc.
senshinone 3 years ago
Your argument about Hep/AIDS is faulty. With this rationale, cops should taser on sight.
Besides, arguments about what ifs or larger actors are irrelevent. The reality is what it is; not it "could've been." UOF is dictated by the situation; that situation did not indicate Taser use.
As for arguments about arm-chair quarterbacking, of course I can. IAB, civilian review boards, and courts do it all the time. Your claim that law enforcement should operate unfettered is as scary as it is absurd.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Not sure how this could ever be addressed in the dojo as this never really comes to the forefront of ones thinking until you learn you and the suspect have just bled all over each other and the suspect has been diagnosed with Hepatitis and you have to go home to your pregnant spouse and/or your infant daughter after you and the suspect are medically cleared from the hospital, the suspect is booked, and the officer finishes his/her shift.(Continues in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
Another thing one has to consider in real life applications is that people have contagious diseases like Hepatitis, AIDS, Tuberculosis, etc., and this presents a whole other realm of considerations when going hands-on, up close and personal, against non-compliant individuals.(Continues in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
In contrast, hands-on techniques almost always result in injuries for both the suspect and the officer. This is another difference between street and dojo, between non-compliant individuals and compliant training partners folks in the field know this, both suspects and officers.(Continues in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
If you want to see how even leverage has its working limitations, try the same technique on someone that is over a foot taller than you and has between 50 and 100 lbs on you. Do this, and you not only see if a technique works, but if you work as a martial artist which is much more important in my opinion.
As for this woman in the video, statistically, you should know, Taser uses often result in fewer injuries to both the suspect and the officer - in fact, almost none are ever manifested.
senshinone 3 years ago
In other words, the training culture of the dojo, which is firmly housed in compliance, guarantees that fulcrums will remain in place, and this in turn makes leverage techniques appear much more effective than they ever really are in the street. If you want some insight into the contrary, into the truth of in-field leverage technques, rather than have someone use their strength against you to see if something works, just have them wiggle all over the place.(Continuing in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
Folks that utilize techniques in the field, outside of the controlled environments of the dojo, know that the dojo versions of techniques appear "obvious" and "easy to pull off" because training partners in the dojo most times lie perfectly still when a technique is being practiced on them.(Continuing in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
That's a lot to ask for - asking for slower and weaker opponents who are always at a greater disadvantage than you are.
In other words, it is never as easy as one may think it is to arrest a non-compliant person even one that is much smaller than you. Therefore, it is a huge mistake to think otherwise and/or to lead folks into believing otherwise. (Continuing in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
Being able to adapt a lever arm to a moving fulcrum requires an extremely high level of skill - most times higher than the skill possessed by an officer and/or a martial arts instructor. Yet, without this skill it becomes next to impossible to apply leverage "effortless" techniques against a resisting and/or non-compliant person. What is most often needed, when no such skill is present, is for one to be stronger and faster, with better balance, etc., than the suspect.(Continuing in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
Additionally, for leverage points to work, it is very important that fulcrum points stay in place (i.e. in the proper working relationship to the lever being utilized). However, in real life, at the speed of life, fulcrum points never stay in place. Even the lightest, weakest, most intoxicated person, can remove fulcrums from the working relationship it is supposed to have with the lever arm. (Continuing in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
Leverage and Strength is basically the same thing. That is to say, there are working limits to both, which means the bigger and stronger the suspect is, the bigger and stronger the officer will have to be to get this type of leverage to work under the same conditions with the same effects.(Continuing in next post.)
senshinone 3 years ago
it doesnt matter what cops do, if they even just grab someone, some dumbass somewhere will yell " abuse of power!" our country is getting more feminized every day.
horsebuff 3 years ago
Why do people feel free to make categorical statements as if they require no support? Of course it matters what cops do. But one reason bad cop behaviour continues is that in the majority of situations most improper behaviour goes unsanctioned, exactly the opposite of what you claim.
You fail to state what exactly you mean by "feminized."
If you mean more prone to think rationally about an issue rather than just beat it with a nightstick to see if that fixes it then I fail to see the problem.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Where did you get that information nokuku4u?
pghscorp 3 years ago
Most of those stats come from the USDJ by way of the ACLU
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Let us keep in mind that in order to carry a taser you have to be tased...just like carrying oleocapsicum resin (pepper spray). So the officers know what they are doing to the "suspect" because they have had a dose of it themselves. Improving handcuffs won't do a damn thing to keep people from being tased because you still have to put them on the suspect putting yourself in some type of harms way. Lesson learned here Dont resist arrest and you wont be tasered, Dumbass!
lilhoss2130 3 years ago
What's your point? Knowing the distress caused does not necessarily have an effect on readiness to inflict it. By your argument, tasers should be used for all arrests, because it is inherently dangerous.
As for "lessons learned," you really aren't in a position to speak. Dana had all charges dismissed. The one who needs to learn a lesson is Sam Muoio, the officer involved. He's racked up quite an array of civilian complaints. I know several officers who know him. He is not well regarded.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
TASERS are BARBARIC -- A CRUEL, bizarre, primitive, torturous tool mis-used as a means to gain control of someone. What we really need are more efficient hand cuffs and other confining methods; not TASERS. Hand-cuffs haven't improved since Houdini. Tasering is wrong. In 20 years we will look back on them like we look back now on death by electric chair and public HANGINGS. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT SHALL BE PROHIBITED.
xvirg 4 years ago
Taser are not barbaric, they help the police to take in to custody dangerous people without deadly force. What should the do if a killer wont comply? Let them go because "oh it so barbaric"?
jimbrenner 3 years ago 2
Your an idiot tazers are a last resort so if theres one copper aganist a murderer who happens to be a body builder and hes swinging punches hes surposed to tackel them by hand oh and by the way i have seen severly druged up suspects stand up to a tazer before
Kevinmwragg 3 years ago
Where to begin? First, while tasers are not a last resort. Firearms are a last resort. Get your facts straight instead of talking out of your ass. Second, what does your example have to do with anything. No one said there aren't bad people in the world, or that being a police officer can be dangerous. That is irrelevant to the current discussion. Certainly the girl in the protest march that prompted my post was neither threatening, nor attacking the officers. She was also not a body builder.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Hmmmm im talking out of my ass then could you expain to me why you have used but one example of a tazar being used unproperly and used it to explain why tazars should not be used at all
You clearly have no concept of subjective probability in order to understand that it is not as simple as your misleading video dictates, you have based your statement on there being *multiple officers, that learning martial arts is easy, that you were a witness to the events you discribe)
Kevinmwragg 3 years ago
If you had bothered to follow the thread you would know that this is a response to a PARTICULAR event. I am not making comments on tasers in general. I have no problems with tasers when used appropriately.
You make many unwarranted assumptions. There WERE over 20 officers there, many mounted, learning martial arts is easy, and people who find if hard shouldn't be police officers; lastly, I live and work in the area in question.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
"Oh and if your[sic] going to be stuck up your own arse this isnt your page it belongs to You Tube you did agree to reading the agreement when you registered did you ?"
Leaving aside the tortured sentence construction, I have to wonder if YOU read the TOS. While the site belongs to YouTube, this page is most certainly mine, and I own ALL copyrights. It is NOT YouTube's.
And again, the word is "you're."
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Oh, and if you're going to call people idiots on my page, you can at least bother to learn the difference between the words "your" and "you're." And what a period is.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
Oh and if your going to be stuck up your own arse this isnt your page it belongs to You Tube you did agree to reading the agreement when you registered did you ?
Kevinmwragg 3 years ago
Did you? Better check the TOS again, Kevin. While the site belongs to YouTube, the page most certainly belongs to me. I retain ALL copyright to anything I posted her.
And again, it's "you're."
ManifoldSky 3 years ago
No physical restraint was warranted at all. Technique aside, how was this not a "resort to more drastic measures"...?
Brainless. So your the "good guy" now?
obbligato123 4 years ago
yeah lets see you employ these strategic techniques in the heat of a crime when there are dozens of people around you screaming and resisting arrest. Brute force causes more trama and harm than being tased. I would rather get tased than attacked by a cop, but hey, I would never be the FUCKING DUMBASS getting told do do something by a cop or i will get tased, and not do it.
SuperColossal33 4 years ago
I bet he isn't too happy when those teqhniques of his snap somebody's arm. I've been tased, and it isn't pain that's the worst, it's just that you completely black out for a short amount of time, and feel all gooey afterwards. I believe it's more efficient than this arm-twisting stuff.
kaiaerkul 4 years ago
This guy is full of shit. I would love to tase him.
melbournaut 4 years ago 2
It's interesting that this guy wants to demonstrate techniques on a cooperative person. I'm sure these techniques work well, on paper. But when it comes to real life, you might as well plan on something going wrong.
Up4FunTonite 4 years ago
Yo, AMPS are what kills you not volts. Tasers have less than one AMP. I think of it like when you sign for your license you're required to giving an alcohol test upon request..
In other words.. if you run from the police, or you pose threat to a police officer, or other citizen yo ass may or may not get tased.
xGibsonx 4 years ago
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Amps (not AMPS) can only kill you if there's enough voltage to overcome skin resistance. Amps without voltage is harmless.
You also do NOT consent to being alcohol tested when you sign your license. They can detain you if you refuse, but it is not for refusing, it is for suspected DUI. Without the test, you can't prove you aren't drunk.
Finally, running from police is most certainly NOT an indication for taser use. Definitely not for "other citizen," whatever that means.
ManifoldSky 3 years ago