georgia pig - September 21, 2009 | 8:09 pm · Link

I’m sure it’s Obama’s fault for making him all uppity when there are known racists in police forces. Also.

HyperIon - September 21, 2009 | 8:12 pm · Link

I’m on Firefox 3.104 and the box containing the video and this one I’m typing into extend way into the right margin..

And I don’t need no stinking FAQ or dictionary.
I hope to be able to edit my comments someday.
That is the plan, right?

Josh Huaco - September 21, 2009 | 8:14 pm · Link

I didn’t know Wheelchairing While Black was a crime, but we shouldn’t be surprised by anything these days.

thomas Levenson - September 21, 2009 | 8:15 pm · Link

Hey, you never know. He could have used sarcasm. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evj24bXakqg&feature=related] check out around minute 4.

asiangrrlMN - September 21, 2009 | 8:18 pm · Link

Nope. Can’t watch it. I know ahead of time that it’ll make me sick to my stomach.

MikeJ - September 21, 2009 | 8:20 pm · Link

Ever seen that commercial for “chick cops of broward county “or whatever they call it? The one where the cop says, “it’s always a good time for a tazer.” Every time I see I wish we would switch to British style unarmed cops.

IndieTarheel - September 21, 2009 | 8:21 pm · Link

Me neither. Can’t even come up with a snarky comment for this one, it’s just jacked up period.

smiley - September 21, 2009 | 8:25 pm · Link

@asiangrrlMN: Heads up asiangrrl: Dr. Strangelove is on TCM tonight at 12:15 AM.

Brian J - September 21, 2009 | 8:26 pm · Link

Digby is all over this, of course. The problem is that tasers are not being used for controlling out-of-hand situations, which might be justified. They are being misused to “punish” people who don’t bow to the authority of the police immediately when told to do so. It’s a serious problem.

Exactly. Nobody would be protesting if the cops were using these methods to protect themselves.

And you’re right that Digby has been all over this. It’s exactly the reason I stopped reading her. I appreciate her efforts, but she was so on point that I just began to feel…helpless at what was happening. Usually, I feel annoyed or enraged, even if I laugh, but here, what’s going on is so outrageous that it’s hard to feel any other way but disappointed and depressed.

Gwangung - September 21, 2009 | 8:30 pm · Link

It goes in one ear and out the other for a lot o cops. They get told it’s a weapon but they treat it as a toy because it’s not “lethal.” wankers. They need to di the paper work just like it was a gun sndgave administrative hearings just like a gun. Slows things down? Well, you’re not treating it with the respect of a gun, then, are you?

asiangrrlMN - September 21, 2009 | 8:33 pm · Link

@smiley: I don’t have cable, damn it! Otherwise I would watch. I’m in the mood for it. However, I do still have to watch Taxi Driver so I can get the DVD back to my tai chi teacher. Maybe I’ll watch that instead.

AhabTRuler - September 21, 2009 | 8:34 pm · Link

Nobody would be protesting if the cops were using these methods to protect themselves.

But the cops

are themselves, or so the argument goes. Our society has also accepted the idea that a police officer or officers can empty multiple clips of ammunition into a suspect or their vehicle if they feel the need in order to protect themselves.

asiangrrlMN - September 21, 2009 | 8:36 pm · Link

@AhabTRuler: Damn right, AhabT. Bigger gang and all that.

Libertini - September 21, 2009 | 8:37 pm · Link

This is just sick. I think it’s time for some cops to start doing time for the abuses they commit. Maybe just a weekend jail for cops like poor people have to do for traffic tickets or bounced checks. But there seriously needs to start being a universal punishment system for cops who abuse their authority, and even minimally abusive behavior should be punished. It’s not fair to the good cops who risk their lives every day to be maligned by those who are not really cops, just sadistic assholes with badges.

AhabTRuler - September 21, 2009 | 8:38 pm · Link

Nobody would be protesting if the cops were using these methods to protect themselves.

But the cops are themselves, or so the argument goes. Our society has also accepted the idea that a police officer or officers can empty multiple clips of ammunition into a suspect or their vehicle if they feel the need in order to protect themselves.

And I am requesting that someone delete #24, because I don’t have a spiffy button to do that (or edit).

smiley - September 21, 2009 | 8:44 pm · Link

@asiangrrlMN: Too bad you don’t have that channel. Prior to that film are two Buster Keaton silents, Brando in, “On the Water Front,” Strangelove, followed by… wait for it… 2001: A Space Odyssey. Tomorrow is Paul Muni day!

Mnemosyne - September 21, 2009 | 8:45 pm · Link

Oh, come on, I only put seven links in my comment #27—why moderation? ;-p

Warren Terra - September 21, 2009 | 8:45 pm · Link

@ SMiley, #11

The problem is that tasers are not being used for controlling out-of-hand situations, which might be justified.

This, exactly.

I love the idea that cops, in a situation where they would otherwise use bullets, might use tasers, or use pepper spray.

The problem is that, here in the real world, they use tasers in situations where only a raving psychopath would contemplate using bullets. They seem to use them in situations that don’t remotely call for the direct application of physical force, my favorite example being that eight-year-old child some cops tased because he wouldn’t come out of his hidey-hole.

Still, my preferred solution is not to take away their tasers; my preferred solution is to automatically log any occasions on which the Taser is unholstered, and especially log when it is fired, and investigate all incidents in which the police fire their Taser, as they investigate every time a cop discharges their pistol. Still better, stick a camera in every cop’s badge, and record what they do on the job. Seal the video away for privacy reasons, keep it for a year or two, and access it by court order when there are reasonable issues of unnecessary force, due process, disputed reasons for arrest, or the like. Handled correctly we could get a better-behaved police force and get better evidence, less easily disputed by genuine transgressors. We could wind up with a police force more uniformly worthy of our respect and our trust.

jon - September 21, 2009 | 8:49 pm · Link

I want a new law that says anyone who is Tased and then released without charges gets to work for a day at an instructor’s salary showing police recruits and trainees (I assume officers need to keep up to date with their training) how much it fucking hurts to get a Taser used on them.

I was going to suggest that there be a Tase-a-Cop day, but I assume their assurances that it isn’t deadly force wouldn’t be as confidently stated if they were on the other side for even one day a year.

El Cruzado - September 21, 2009 | 8:59 pm · Link

I know the police where I live (Loudoun county VA) get tased themselves as a prerequisite before they are allowed to carry the taser around. I’m not aware of many unwarranted uses of the thing around here and that might be one of the reasons.

In any case, as a nonlethal deterrent, I think it’s a good idea that those given the authority to use it know exactly what they’re subjecting other people to.

AhabTRuler - September 21, 2009 | 9:04 pm · Link

I want a new law that says anyone who is Tased and then released without charges

But that’s the insidious thing: the use of the Taser has nothing to with whether an individual is charged with anything, or even guilty of anything. The use of the Taser is just one of many methods endorsed in order to enforce compliance. If the cop says the guy in the wheelchair wasn’t complying, the benefit of the doubt goes to the police officer, and the use of the Taser is considered completely legitimate. Its not like cops didn’t beat the shit of of suspects, or even kill them, completely “within the law” before Tasers.

Sadly, I fear the only change is the ubiquity of cameras has made easier for such acts to become known.

smiley - September 21, 2009 | 9:04 pm · Link

@El Cruzado:

In any case, as a nonlethal deterrent,

I’m pretty sure people have died after being tased. Don’t have the sites now but you can check Digby’s archives for them.

El Cruzado - September 21, 2009 | 9:22 pm · Link

@smiley: Oh, I’m well aware of the risks especially to people with heart issues.

The more the reason for the (necessarily healthy) policemen to be aware of what they’re subjecting others to.

kay - September 21, 2009 | 9:27 pm · Link

@Mnemosyne:

Ten years it’s going to be outlawed. That’s my prediction. We’ll convene panels to determine when, exactly, we lost our goddamn minds.

I’d also like to see some data on what lasting effect, if any, tasing has on brain or body function in children, because they’re tasing children, and children’s bodies are different than adult’s bodies.
In the interim, however, tasing has a chilling effect.
My big fear is people are going to be afraid to verbally challenge a stop or any police questioning, prior to arrest, because they’re afraid they’re going to be tased.
That’s dangerous. I’m willing to bet it’s already had an effect.

Mnemosyne - September 21, 2009 | 9:46 pm · Link

@Brachiator:

However, here is the universal “get out of jail” card for cops: the officer believed that his life was in danger. Once this has been invoked, review boards and juries fall all over themselves to excuse a cop’s actions, no matter how abhorrent.

I’m sure that any second now, all of the police apologists will come rushing in to tell us that for all the cops knew, that guy in a wheelchair / old man in a hospital bed / pregnant woman had a gun so of course the cop was justified in doing any and everything to protect his or her own life.

My question is, when did we as a society decide that police work should be 100 percent risk-free, so therefore any action a cop takes to protect his/her safety is always justified? It’s like they’re replaying the puppy scene in Apocalypse Now over and over again every goddamned day and never learning a thing from it.

Makewi - September 21, 2009 | 9:57 pm · Link

I am against tasering people in wheelchairs in all but a handful of exceptional cases. The article linked only says that the tasering has been alleged and an investigation is ongoing. It also says that the police were there because his wife alleged he hit her.

So, I guess I’m curious if it turns out he is a wife beater, would it change your opinion on his getting tased and/or manhandled during his arrest?

kay - September 21, 2009 | 10:02 pm · Link

@Makewi:

Of course not. He has to be CHARGED and FOUND GUILTY prior to punishment.
Why is this so hard? I mean, seriously. Have you gone mad?
You viewed a video and you have him convicted? He “deserves” tasering now?
Good God. Completely unmoored from the most basic shared principles and rules.

rikyrah - September 21, 2009 | 10:08 pm · Link

ok, please explain it to me like i’m 3.

how the FUCK is a double AMPUTEE going to be ’ threat’ to anyone in law enforcement..because you know that’s the excuse that they use…. no matter how old, or incapicitated they are… no matter if they look like your Mama on a cane could take them down…they are always a ’ threat’.

i’m telling you… these damn cops have lost their fucking minds with these tasers.

joe from Lowell - September 21, 2009 | 10:11 pm · Link

“When I tell you to stand up, you stand up! Faggot.”

I swear to God, cops aren’t like that in Lowell.

Makewi - September 21, 2009 | 10:15 pm · Link

@kay:

The reason the police were there is because his wife said he hit her. I’m not making that up, it’s actually in the article. I also never said he deserved to be tased, but that the article only says he has claimed he was tased.

AhabTRuler - September 21, 2009 | 10:17 pm · Link

2nd Amendment.

Well, I guarantee that you’ll get their attention, but I don’t think that Tasers are what you should worry about.

General Winfield Stuck - September 21, 2009 | 10:21 pm · Link

@Makewi:

So, I guess I’m curious if it turns out he is a wife beater, would it change your opinion on his getting tased and/or manhandled during his arrest?

Ha. Herein lies a primo example of wingnut logic. If he was a wifebeater, would it be ok to waterboard him, fry his testicles, or put a diaper on his head?

Never occurs to folks like our Scarlett, that one thing has nothing to do with the other. The arrest is completely separate to the alleged crime in our system. The only question that matters is is it necessary or even rational to tase a man with no legs in a wheelchair to force compliance for what, running away? All the cop has to do is push the WC to wherever he wants, and get a van with a lift.

Makewi - September 21, 2009 | 10:26 pm · Link

@General Winfield Stuck:

Eaten. By. A. Bear. I’d stay far away from the woods if I was you, and for Gods sake avoid honey at all costs.

AhabTRuler - September 21, 2009 | 10:29 pm · Link

@General Winfield Stuck: Well, we only have the man’s word that he has no legs. He could be hiding them, and that would definitely be worth a paddlin’ Tasin’.

kay - September 21, 2009 | 10:35 pm · Link

@Makewi:

I have to say, conservatives are consistent in one area.
You never, ever recognize a real threat from the state.
You chase all these imaginary threats, and when the state completely and outrageously negates the real essence of liberty, which might mean, at it’s most basic level, “the ability to retain some control over my basic bodlly functions while being questioned” you simply don’t see it.

General Winfield Stuck - September 21, 2009 | 10:37 pm · Link

@Makewi:

NIght Scarlett.

And remember:

With Gawd as my witness, I will never be stupid and wrong again

Comrade Dread - September 21, 2009 | 10:42 pm · Link

So, let’s see… I predict that the officers will be on paid leave for a few days during the investigation that will say they acted in accordance with department policy and will probably be promoted.

Kirk Spencer - September 21, 2009 | 10:53 pm · Link

@rikyrah: OK, I’ll explain how a double amputee CAN be a threat. In return, I’m going to ask you to keep in mind I do NOT think this applies here.

I worked in a prison for a while. In that prison was an individual. He was an assassin – killed people for money. He finally got convicted of a few of the murders and was (and is) going to spend a very long time behind bars. Thing is, he was a very good killer and there are people behind bars others would like to see dead. He had more murder convictions for inside murders than he had for outside.

The kicker to that is that after his second murder, friends of his victim retaliated. He’s a paraplegic – no control whatsoever of the legs and only partial control of everything in the pelvic area. He killed at least four people after that, two of them the people who put him in a wheelchair.

Dangerous? Oh, yes. One of the smartest people I ever met, with zero conscience whatsoever. The searches were a joy – he’d hide things in the armrests (they detach, you know) and the foot rests and his colostomy bag and… yeah. If we went more than a week without finding something on him a SERIOUS search was scheduled.

He put some officers in the hospital, too. Almost killed a couple. He’s staying in that prison forever. If it weren’t for the wheelchair he’d probably be in max but as it was he was in the next level down.

Again, I don’t think the man in this case was like that or doing jack to threaten the officer. However, thinking a man in a wheelchair can’t be a threat is a mistake. Just for your education.

Donald G - September 21, 2009 | 11:27 pm · Link

@Kirk Spencer:

The kicker to that is that after his second murder, friends of his victim retaliated. He’s a paraplegic – no control whatsoever of the legs and only partial control of everything in the pelvic area. He killed at least four people after that, two of them the people who put him in a wheelchair.

Dangerous? Oh, yes. One of the smartest people I ever met, with zero conscience whatsoever. The searches were a joy – he’d hide things in the armrests (they detach, you know) and the foot rests and his colostomy bag and… yeah. If we went more than a week without finding something on him a SERIOUS search was scheduled.

Will your paraplegic wheelchair bound assassin be played by Ian McKellan in the movie, as per this parody video clip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8plKD704g4

Sorry, Kirk, I am not denying that your assassin remains a dangerous man, but there is probably a great deal of difference between that guy and the guy who was tasered.

Comrade Darkness - September 21, 2009 | 11:54 pm · Link

@Gwangung: Is there any kind of policy that requires all cops who carry a tazer to have it used on them regularly, to make the point?

Or, perhaps, given the personalities involved, that might not help.

Mnemosyne - September 22, 2009 | 12:11 am · Link

@Kirk Spencer:

Again, I don’t think the man in this case was like that or doing jack to threaten the officer. However, thinking a man in a wheelchair can’t be a threat is a mistake. Just for your education.

I have to say, it freaks me out to realize that when a cop looks at me, he spends all his time trying to figure out how I’m going to kill him when all I’m doing is trying to get my driver’s license out of my purse, and that even, say, refusing to sign the ticket means they’ll tase me because I’m clearly dangerous if I won’t even sign a ticket I don’t think I deserved.

drillfork - September 22, 2009 | 1:16 am · Link

The cops will get theirs.

http://www.tasermart.com/

We can all buy our own tasers, people!

Someone’s going to taser a cop—you KNOW it will happen. Then we’ll start hearing about how very dangerous these devices are.

When they’re in the wrong hands, of course…

JHD - September 22, 2009 | 4:07 am · Link

Oh you liberal fools: That man was ARMED! He had two of them! This is Obamamerica, where black folks can parade around on their luxury rides in front of the police with ARMS! And the witnesses will just say, “Right Arm!” Wake up! Or must I use MORE CAPS????

kay - September 22, 2009 | 8:22 am · Link

@brantl:

Forget the witnesses. Just read the prosecutor’s statement.
He spent 6 days in jail on “suspicion of domestic violence” and was not charged. Why wasn’t he released pending the charges that never came?
He’s a flight risk?
He wasn’t resisting arrest, and that’s why he wasn’t charged with that. He was resisting turning his 2 year old over to a children’s service’s worker. The rationale for removing the 2 year old was domestic violence.
Let’s review: he was tasered and spent six days in jail for “suspicion of domestic violence”. “Suspicion of domestic violence” isn’t actually a crime, so, sadly (for him!) it appears he was punished prior to charges, let alone a conviction. Oh, well.

Eric U. - September 22, 2009 | 10:15 am · Link

the cops near here tazed an old geezer that was pointing a rifle at them. That’s what they are for.

I remember an incident in front of the White House before the tazer was in wide use. A crazy person was threatening people with a large cooking knife. The cops ended up killing that person. Nowadays they could tazer him and be done with it. It could be a valuable tool, it really seems to have gotten out of hand.

norbizness - September 22, 2009 | 12:44 pm · Link

He’s coming right for us!

Makewi - September 22, 2009 | 3:54 pm · Link

@kay:

You’re funny, because you don’t so much respond to my comments as you respond to the worst interpretations of what my comments might be if they were written by some horrible arch conservative caricature. I comment about verifying allegations and due process and you, oddly, act as if I am calling for the removal of personal liberty. What’s up with that?

kay - September 22, 2009 | 4:25 pm · Link

@Makewi:

So dishonest, Makewi.
Look, we have an honest difference of opinion. You think it is perfectly acceptable for the state to use 40,000 volts as a persuasive tool to ensure compliance with a lawful or unlawful order.
I don’t.
It isn’t even a close call.
I do hope you’re never tased, though. I watched a demonstration. It hurts like hell, and we have no earthly idea if it leaves lasting damage.

Makewi - September 22, 2009 | 4:36 pm · Link

@kay:

Your problem is that you are arguing with phantoms in your head. I never said it was ok for them to tase the guy, but being the absolutely starkers sort that you are, and being incapable of arguing in good faith, you will continue to pretend that I did. Because you crazy, and apparently not honest enough to argue against what I actually said.

kay - September 22, 2009 | 5:09 pm · Link

@Makewi:

No. There are two complimentary actions here. There’s a potential criminal action (DV) and the civil action that (sometimes) accompanies DV charges (abuse neglect and dependency).
Child abuse is also , of course, a crime, but he wasn’t accused of child abuse. He was accused of DV. The children’s services worker is the tip-off.
Children’s services are called in DV cases because a child witnessing DV is itself a reason for removal, under abuse, neglect and dependency statutes. BUT, you need an order. Or consent. Or exigent circumstances.
Finally, if they were married, the mother may not consent on behalf of the child’s father. It isn’t 1954. They have equal rights regarding that child.
The right to retain care and control over your child is a fundamental constitutional right. He refused. They required a court order.
Most people consent, because they mistakenly believe the state has power it actually doesn’t have. This person (rightly, as it turned out, he wasn’t even charged) did not consent.
He suffered for it though, and therein is the problem.