|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
The UCLA Tasering incident | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-20 13:28:36 |
|
I've seen most of the video | by wheresthefish | 2006-11-20 14:40:40 |
| except that the policy prohibits what they did |
by gibuu |
2006-11-20 14:51:11 |
by my read of it...
the policy says the all of the following need to be assessed before using the taser:
(a) The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used,
Seeing as he was limp on the floor refusing to stand up, what is the risk of injury to an officer?
(b) The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled,
According to his legal counsel he did in fact state he has a medical condition. This could have been fatal if he had a pacemaker....
(c) The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance,
he was passively resisting. They could have simply carried him out - as in fact they had to do after tasering him more than 4 or 5 times in a 5 minute period
(d) The nature of the offense involved,
Was the offence not having his ID, or just refusing to stand up? bearing in mind he was already enroute to the door when he was stopped by security..
(e) The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved,
again he was passively resisting by going limp....
(f) The need for prompt resolution of the situation,
whas there a need for prompt resolution (ie faster than carrying him) Prompt is relative and I contend that tasering him actually prolonged the incident. He was cuffed and limp. Carrying him would have been much faster.
(g) If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.
Perhaps just carrying him? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
