Almost all states in the US have the notion of "implied consent" when it comes to issuing driver's licenses. Basically, the concept is that any person who operates a motor vehicle on a roadway automatically gives consent for the state administered chemical tests of one's blood, breathe or urine if the police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. One still has the right to refuse the state administered test, however refusal carries almost the same penalties as an actual DUI conviction (suspension of driver's license, fines, etc). Here in Georgia, the suspect also has the right to request his OWN blood-alcohol content test from a doctor or facility of his own choosing after taking the state-administered test (within reason: one cannot request the test be adminitered at some hospital on the other side of the state).
I'd like to take a moment and add my perspective to this situation. I've cringed at too many misinformed comments about use-of-force and other police issues to sit idly by and allow FUD to get spread as fact.
I am an officer with a large metropolitian police department in the Southeastern United States. As part of my duty gear, I am issued a Taser International X-26 air taser. About one in three of our officers are issued these tasers (or the slightly older M-26 model). Now, I think a lot of people have some misconceptions about the tasers and how they work. Taser International has almost a 100 percent market share when it comes to law enforcement air tasers, so the device the police are using in the YouTube video is probably the same type taser that I am issued. The X-26 is able to shoot two probes connected to the taser by fine wires up to a range of 20-25 feet. The taser is laser-sighted by a laser that is activated when the safety catch is released. One probe is fired straight ahead, while the second has a slight downward trajectory in order to (hopefully) maximaze the distance between the two probes when they hit the target. The current runs between the two probes through the target, so the further apart the two probes are on the subject's body the more major muscle groups are affected by the charge.
When the trigger is pulled, the taser produces the 50,000 volt current for 5 seconds. At any time when the current is being generated the safety catch can be used to switch the current off, however our current department training policy is to give the subject the full five seconds every time the taser is deployed. After that, if the subject is still combative, the trigger can again be pulled for another five second burst (and so on). A secondary way to use the taser is the so-called "dry stun". In this method, the catridge at the front of the taser that contains the probes can be removed to allow the taser to be used as a "stun gun" for a press-contact discharge onto the subject. This method would be utilized if the probes from the first shot missed or malfunctioned.
Now, what some Slashdotter may find shocking (pun intended), is that the deployment of the taser falls into the use of force continuum right above verbal commands (the same as OC or pepper spray, or using soft, empty hands to subdue to suspect: e.g. 'habeus grabus'). In the context of the YouTube video, the subject was obviously guilty of disorderly conduct (at least per Georgia law) and ANY non-compliance by the suspect after the officers decided to place him under arrest justifies the use of the taser. There is no reason an officer needs to risk injury to himself or the susect when the taser can be used to harmlessly end the confrontation. It doesn't matter that the suspect was "trying to leave". You can't break the law, CONTINUE to break the law once the police arrive, and then just decide to leave and think that you are immune to the legal repercussions of your own actions.
Just to be clear: it is my opinion that the FIRST use of the taser by the police in this situation was entirely justified. The suspect was resisting arrest by being both physically and verbally non-compliant with the officer's commands, and the deployment of the taser was justified in such a situation. I'm going to reserve comment on any further use of the taser shown in the video until more information is available. Are there situations where it would be necessary to taser someone that is handcuffed? Yes, but there had better be some pretty extreme circumstances to justify such behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all states in the US have the notion of "implied consent" when it comes to issuing driver's licenses. Basically, the concept is that any person who operates a motor vehicle on a roadway automatically gives consent for the state administered chemical tests of one's blood, breathe or urine if the police officer has probable cause to believe that the driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. One still has the right to refuse the state administered test, however refusal carries almost the same penalties as an actual DUI conviction (suspension of driver's license, fines, etc). Here in Georgia, the suspect also has the right to request his OWN blood-alcohol content test from a doctor or facility of his own choosing after taking the state-administered test (within reason: one cannot request the test be adminitered at some hospital on the other side of the state).
I'd like to take a moment and add my perspective to this situation. I've cringed at too many misinformed comments about use-of-force and other police issues to sit idly by and allow FUD to get spread as fact. I am an officer with a large metropolitian police department in the Southeastern United States. As part of my duty gear, I am issued a Taser International X-26 air taser. About one in three of our officers are issued these tasers (or the slightly older M-26 model). Now, I think a lot of people have some misconceptions about the tasers and how they work. Taser International has almost a 100 percent market share when it comes to law enforcement air tasers, so the device the police are using in the YouTube video is probably the same type taser that I am issued. The X-26 is able to shoot two probes connected to the taser by fine wires up to a range of 20-25 feet. The taser is laser-sighted by a laser that is activated when the safety catch is released. One probe is fired straight ahead, while the second has a slight downward trajectory in order to (hopefully) maximaze the distance between the two probes when they hit the target. The current runs between the two probes through the target, so the further apart the two probes are on the subject's body the more major muscle groups are affected by the charge. When the trigger is pulled, the taser produces the 50,000 volt current for 5 seconds. At any time when the current is being generated the safety catch can be used to switch the current off, however our current department training policy is to give the subject the full five seconds every time the taser is deployed. After that, if the subject is still combative, the trigger can again be pulled for another five second burst (and so on). A secondary way to use the taser is the so-called "dry stun". In this method, the catridge at the front of the taser that contains the probes can be removed to allow the taser to be used as a "stun gun" for a press-contact discharge onto the subject. This method would be utilized if the probes from the first shot missed or malfunctioned. Now, what some Slashdotter may find shocking (pun intended), is that the deployment of the taser falls into the use of force continuum right above verbal commands (the same as OC or pepper spray, or using soft, empty hands to subdue to suspect: e.g. 'habeus grabus'). In the context of the YouTube video, the subject was obviously guilty of disorderly conduct (at least per Georgia law) and ANY non-compliance by the suspect after the officers decided to place him under arrest justifies the use of the taser. There is no reason an officer needs to risk injury to himself or the susect when the taser can be used to harmlessly end the confrontation. It doesn't matter that the suspect was "trying to leave". You can't break the law, CONTINUE to break the law once the police arrive, and then just decide to leave and think that you are immune to the legal repercussions of your own actions. Just to be clear: it is my opinion that the FIRST use of the taser by the police in this situation was entirely justified. The suspect was resisting arrest by being both physically and verbally non-compliant with the officer's commands, and the deployment of the taser was justified in such a situation. I'm going to reserve comment on any further use of the taser shown in the video until more information is available. Are there situations where it would be necessary to taser someone that is handcuffed? Yes, but there had better be some pretty extreme circumstances to justify such behavior.