New York man dies after being shot by police stun gun

[elvis15]

Of course I do, but I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about cops who use a hand gun, a weapon that fires metal faster than sound, at an unarmed man. As I stated, the case OP is talking about is an unfortunate tragedy.

So... why bring it up here?

[Realtor Rod]

Clearly police brutality

Sarcasm I hope

[canucks.brad]

yea...a lot of you guys didn't read the article I'm guessing....

[VanGnome]

So every cop should diffuse a situation by hand to hand combat?

What if he has a knife?

Stop treating criminals as victims.

Police need to protect themselves too. Here's a little tip I use to prevent being tazed, don't run at police in a threatening manner.

The key was UNARMED. Clearly if the suspect has a weapon then the officer is justified in using non lethal methods to diffuse a situation.

If however, the suspect is gearing up to throw a punch, then the officers have a number of non lethal, non weapon based ways to deal with that as well. It's exactly why police get the training they do.

The officer could have very easily used an arm-bar take down combined with a bear hug to subdue the suspect with the aid of additional officers. Would the officer be at risk of getting an elbow or fist to the head/face/body? Sure, but if he can't take a few lumps, he really shouldn't be on the Police force.

IMO, this is clearly a situation where the officer used an improper measure of force for the situation, ie his decision making ability was impaired which led to the wrong tool being used, ending up in a fatality.

[Kragar]

Fair enough, but if you're going to shoot the guy, aim lower, around his legs.

Even if this was a gun, as opposed to a stun gun, you do not aim for the legs. The odds of missing are much higher, and with such an oblique angle, the bullet can bounce off pavement and hit an innocent person.

Given the brief info in the article, I see no wrong-doing on the part of the police officer.

[D-Money]

The key was UNARMED. Clearly if the suspect has a weapon then the officer is justified in using non lethal methods to diffuse a situation.

If however, the suspect is gearing up to throw a punch, then the officers have a number of non lethal, non weapon based ways to deal with that as well. It's exactly why police get the training they do.

The officer could have very easily used an arm-bar take down combined with a bear hug to subdue the suspect with the aid of additional officers. Would the officer be at risk of getting an elbow or fist to the head/face/body? Sure, but if he can't take a few lumps, he really shouldn't be on the Police force.

IMO, this is clearly a situation where the officer used an improper measure of force for the situation, ie his decision making ability was impaired which led to the wrong tool being used, ending up in a fatality.

Ridiculous.

How big was the officer? How big was the aggressor?

Did the victim have special training in hand-to-hand combat? ...Don't know, do you? Neither could the police officer, could they? Should he just guess no, and that their hand-to-hand combat would prove superior? And if it didn't, well, at least his kids would have life insurance, right?

Of course there are examples of police abusing their authority, and using their tazer when completely unnecessary, but this is sure as s$%t not one of them. If you do everything this guy did, and only end up getting tazed, you got off easy. If complications from the tazer ended your life, that is your own doing.

[grandmaster]

My exact problem with police these days (though in this case it is just an unfortunate tragedy). If an unarmed man attacks you (as a cop), that gives you the right to shoot him. How is a fist more threatening than a gun?

Wow

A taser is NOT lethal force. There are other factors that come in play when someone dies as a result of a taser being used (such as the subjects health, heart condition, cocaine psychosis, medical care after it's deployed etc). The taser is supposed to give police an option so they do not resort to their firearm. A taser use in this situation is perfectly justified. How you can not see that is beyond me. This person was obviously in a crazed and extreme threatening state that needed immediate control. Did you not read what this guy was doing??!?

[Electro Rock]

Being a cop is a sweet gig, you get paid to take money and lord over honest citizens and petty criminals, and quite often you can literally get away with murder.

[Qwags]

Wow

A taser is NOT lethal force. There are other factors that come in play when someone dies as a result of a taser being used (such as the subjects health, heart condition, cocaine psychosis, medical care after it's deployed etc). The taser is supposed to give police an option so they do not resort to their firearm. A taser use in this situation is perfectly justified. How you can not see that is beyond me. This person was obviously in a crazed and extreme threatening state that needed immediate control. Did you not read what this guy was doing??!?

I never said that it was lethal force. In fact in this case, it probably was the best move.

[RonMexico]

Ridiculous.

How big was the officer? How big was the aggressor?

Did the victim have special training in hand-to-hand combat? ...Don't know, do you? Neither could the police officer, could they? Should he just guess no, and that their hand-to-hand combat would prove superior? And if it didn't, well, at least his kids would have life insurance, right?

Of course there are examples of police abusing their authority, and using their tazer when completely unnecessary, but this is sure as s$%t not one of them. If you do everything this guy did, and only end up getting tazed, you got off easy. If complications from the tazer ended your life, that is your own doing.

Maybe the cop should have asked this felon if he had a medical conditions that might be affected if he was tazered? Or maybe the officer could have diffused the situation by giving him a $5 Starbucks card, had a nice curb side heart-to-heart and apologized for being remotely aggressive towards him. After all, the guy was just having a bad day and has to get his anger out somehow.

[Heretic]

Fair enough, but if you're going to shoot the guy, aim lower, around his legs.

Should have aimed for the head IMHO.

In all seriousness, it's unfortunate this man died - but it was his choice to either listen to the police or run at them.

[VanGnome]

Ridiculous.

How big was the officer? How big was the aggressor?

Did the victim have special training in hand-to-hand combat? ...Don't know, do you? Neither could the police officer, could they? Should he just guess no, and that their hand-to-hand combat would prove superior? And if it didn't, well, at least his kids would have life insurance, right?

Of course there are examples of police abusing their authority, and using their tazer when completely unnecessary, but this is sure as s$%t not one of them. If you do everything this guy did, and only end up getting tazed, you got off easy. If complications from the tazer ended your life, that is your own doing.

Generally speaking, anyone with any kind of specialized hand to hand combat training will not "charge at the officer with a clenched fist". If true harm was intended by way of specialized attacks, the attacker will wait until they are within range to execute those attacks. The description of the assailant seemed like "fit of rage" more than Bruce Lee incarnate.

IMO the description of what went down would have been a pretty clear indicator of the mental state of the individual, probably in the throws of some sort of drug induced state, won't know unless the toxicology results are released as part of the autopsy report.

That being said, the primary target (the officer who shot the individual) should have had his weapon drawn but not pointed at or ready to fire until the absolute last second, especially given there was no weapon involved on the part of the assailant; the other officers present should have been in position to provide back up and support to the officer involved and could have fired on the suspect if indeed it would appear that the officer would be in a life threatening situation.

Wow

A taser is NOT lethal force. There are other factors that come in play when someone dies as a result of a taser being used (such as the subjects health, heart condition, cocaine psychosis, medical care after it's deployed etc). The taser is supposed to give police an option so they do not resort to their firearm. A taser use in this situation is perfectly justified. How you can not see that is beyond me. This person was obviously in a crazed and extreme threatening state that needed immediate control. Did you not read what this guy was doing??!?

The ironic thing here, is that the assailant was more or less likely to be high on cocaine, or something else, and/or could have had a pre-existing medical condition which resulted in cardiac arrest (which is the likely cause of death from a taser). Had the officer shot the individual with his firearm just about anywhere but center mass (say in the right shoulder region) this individual would have had a higher chance at survival, and would have faced justice for the rampage he went on causing the damages he did and in general being a menace to public safety.

I've long been against officers having tasers for a multitude of reasons, even long before the incident at the Vancouver Int'l airport. The weapons are inherently more dangerous than a gun simply for the fact that everyone's reaction to being hit with a taser is an unknown. With 10's of thousands of volts of electricity surging through the body, it will undoubtedly have an impact on anyone with a pre-existing medical condition, regardless of that condition having been diagnosed or not.

If a taser is used in a crowd control situation because someone is protesting a little too violently, and that individual ends up dead as a result, I think that's a pretty unfair thing to have happen. At least with a traditional firearm, if it absolutely has to be fired at an individual, a single shot is more than enough to put them down without loss of life; unless that is they are unlucky enough to have an artery hit or something else unforeseen occur. The point is, is that everyone has that same chance at survival unlike when a taser is involved.

Individuals who choose to be Police officers have to understand that a certain element of risk is inherent and comes with the job. It doesn't excuse that individual from making poor choices when others could have been made before the one which resulted in the worst possible outcome. If that individual is incapable of making those split second decisions under duress, then I'm sorry they shouldn't be a cop, plain and simple.

There are a lot of professions that a lot of people just shouldn't be in. Certainly I think that more stringent training and requirements should be applied to the application and hiring process of Police, and this has never been more evident as it has been recently with everything that's happening in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc.

[D-Money]

I agree that police officers should receive more training. Also, in general, better working conditions and higher pay. Any career that forces you to make such important, life-altering decisions should compensate highly enough to attract a better class of applicant.

But, again, there is nothing in the description in this story that indicates at all that the police officer acted rashly or chose poorly. We can talk about the ideal circumstances for a takedown, but we don't know the specific details.

And although the position of police officer carries some reasonable danger, they should not be expected to put their life or the lives of their fellow officers in unnecessary risk.

[TOMapleLaughs]

These stories only reach mainstream news if he's black and he's killed by a cop, esp. a white cop. 99.99% of the time though the person is apprehended safely in this scenario and he's put in jail where he belongs.

[Heretic]

Generally speaking, anyone with any kind of specialized hand to hand combat training will not "charge at the officer with a clenched fist". If true harm was intended by way of specialized attacks, the attacker will wait until they are within range to execute those attacks. The description of the assailant seemed like "fit of rage" more than Bruce Lee incarnate.

IMO the description of what went down would have been a pretty clear indicator of the mental state of the individual, probably in the throws of some sort of drug induced state, won't know unless the toxicology results are released as part of the autopsy report.

That being said, the primary target (the officer who shot the individual) should have had his weapon drawn but not pointed at or ready to fire until the absolute last second, especially given there was no weapon involved on the part of the assailant; the other officers present should have been in position to provide back up and support to the officer involved and could have fired on the suspect if indeed it would appear that the officer would be in a life threatening situation.

The ironic thing here, is that the assailant was more or less likely to be high on cocaine, or something else, and/or could have had a pre-existing medical condition which resulted in cardiac arrest (which is the likely cause of death from a taser). Had the officer shot the individual with his firearm just about anywhere but center mass (say in the right shoulder region) this individual would have had a higher chance at survival, and would have faced justice for the rampage he went on causing the damages he did and in general being a menace to public safety.

I've long been against officers having tasers for a multitude of reasons, even long before the incident at the Vancouver Int'l airport. The weapons are inherently more dangerous than a gun simply for the fact that everyone's reaction to being hit with a taser is an unknown. With 10's of thousands of volts of electricity surging through the body, it will undoubtedly have an impact on anyone with a pre-existing medical condition, regardless of that condition having been diagnosed or not.

If a taser is used in a crowd control situation because someone is protesting a little too violently, and that individual ends up dead as a result, I think that's a pretty unfair thing to have happen. At least with a traditional firearm, if it absolutely has to be fired at an individual, a single shot is more than enough to put them down without loss of life; unless that is they are unlucky enough to have an artery hit or something else unforeseen occur. The point is, is that everyone has that same chance at survival unlike when a taser is involved.

Individuals who choose to be Police officers have to understand that a certain element of risk is inherent and comes with the job. It doesn't excuse that individual from making poor choices when others could have been made before the one which resulted in the worst possible outcome. If that individual is incapable of making those split second decisions under duress, then I'm sorry they shouldn't be a cop, plain and simple.

There are a lot of professions that a lot of people just shouldn't be in. Certainly I think that more stringent training and requirements should be applied to the application and hiring process of Police, and this has never been more evident as it has been recently with everything that's happening in Baltimore, Ferguson, etc.

Say what?

Are you saying that it is better for people to be shot at because it's the same result for everyone as opposed to a taser which can only harm a small minority?

Good grief man...

[VanGnome]

Say what?

Are you saying that it is better for people to be shot at because it's the same result for everyone as opposed to a taser which can only harm a small minority?

Good grief man...

I'd like to see the study and the control group they used to determine that a taser only harms a "small minority", I don't think you can produce that because it likely doesn't exist, the closest you might get is Jackass.

The point I was making, is the unknown. There's no way to estimate the effect of a taser on a person with absolute certainty. The uncertainty of the unknown is far more dangerous than the reasonable expectation of what happens when a known quantity is employed.

The dangers of guns, and the chances of survival from gun shots is far more equal for everyone than that of the effects of tasers.

Guns also don't need to be loaded with ammunition capable of lethal damage, for example rubber bullets. Why they don't use rubber bullets as standard issue, is because those people who would do them harm with their own firearms are using real bullets, and in a lot of cases bullets designed to penetrate the body armour issued to police.

[etsen3]

Usually I'm on the side of police brutality victims (especially when race is involved) but I'm on the cop's side here. It doesn't appear that they used excessive force, especially since this guy was clearly a danger to himself and those around him. The guy was using his car as a weapon to destroy property and he could have easily hurt or killed someone. We don't know details but so far it seems like the police were not overzealous with their use of force, nor did they start the exchange by pulling over someone minding their own business.

Whether tazers should really be used as "non lethal weapons" is up for debate, but I think the police acted with good judgment here.

[Heretic]

I'd like to see the study and the control group they used to determine that a taser only harms a "small minority", I don't think you can produce that because it likely doesn't exist, the closest you might get is Jackass.

The point I was making, is the unknown. There's no way to estimate the effect of a taser on a person with absolute certainty. The uncertainty of the unknown is far more dangerous than the reasonable expectation of what happens when a known quantity is employed.

The dangers of guns, and the chances of survival from gun shots is far more equal for everyone than that of the effects of tasers.

Guns also don't need to be loaded with ammunition capable of lethal damage, for example rubber bullets. Why they don't use rubber bullets as standard issue, is because those people who would do them harm with their own firearms are using real bullets, and in a lot of cases bullets designed to penetrate the body armour issued to police.

I agree, a Taser isn't safe - but it's a lot safer than a gun with bullets - IE, your chances of surviving being tasered are better than a regular gun.

"A Wake Forest School of Medicine study published in 2012 on 1,200 people shocked by Tasers reports “overall, 99.75 percent of suspects sustained no or mild injuries.”"

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Tasers-A-Closer-Look-233399361.html

[D-Money]

The dangers of guns, and the chances of survival from gun shots is far more equal for everyone than that of the effects of tasers.

Guns also don't need to be loaded with ammunition capable of lethal damage, for example rubber bullets. Why they don't use rubber bullets as standard issue, is because those people who would do them harm with their own firearms are using real bullets, and in a lot of cases bullets designed to penetrate the body armour issued to police.

Equally higher, yes.

The thing about tasers is not only do people survive them more often than alternatives, but they rarely carry any lasting side effect. In fact, within an hour most people are pretty much back to normal. But incapacitating someone with a projectile is far more often to leave the target with some sort of injury.

Such "kinetic impact munitions" are meant to cause pain but not serious injury. They are expected to produce contusions, abrasions, and hematomas.^[6] However, they may cause bone fractures, injuries to internal organs, or death. In a study of injuries in 90 patients injured by rubber bullets, one died, 17 suffered permanent disabilities or deformities and 41 required hospital treatment after being fired upon with rubber bullets.

- Wikipedia

[riffraff]

$&!# happens.

Go ape$&!#, act violently and destroy property, then charge the police: expect to be subdued in any manner.

Not saying cops are always justified, but cop has gotta cop and with the lack of a mental health doctor in a cape appearing on the scene society only has poorly trained law enforcement to decide the outcome of its civilians in scenarios like these.