Police Tazer, Pepperspray, and Beat Mentally Challenged Teen

[Hurkyl]

And why would there need to be a confrontation with the home owner?

Eh? You already recommended that the homeowner be confronted:

knocked on the door and spoke to the boy's mother.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Eh? You already recommended that the homeowner be confronted:

Confront has hostile connotations. Discussion, discourse, communication, a 'chat' with the homeowner explaining the situation.

People with authority set the tone for a situation. A measured approach, is less likely to yield a hostile response as a confrontational approach.

 

[micromass]

Ah, thanks! Are you able to find a reference for which rules are relevant in this particular case?


Anyways, if we go by the military rules of engagement you mentioned, the claims in linked court case indicate he was level 3 at least (at the time the taser struck, he was level 2 at least), and offers no comment on whether or not the kid reached level 4 or above.

(you are classifying both tasers and pepper spray as "enhanced pain compliance", then?)

Yes, if the boy was actually starting to attack the police officers, then he would be lvl 4, but the article doesn't mention that he did or did not.

What could be is that he maybe made threatening gestures to the police (or gestures that the police interpreted as threatening), and the officers (for their own safety) used the taser to protect themselves.

What I am actually looking for is an article where the cops explain their point-of-view and explain why they did what they did. I don't think they used a taser without a good reason, but I would like to know that reason.

The way I read the article, is that the use of tasers and pepperspray was too much force. But you are right in saying that the article is one-dimensional: it only explains the POV of the mother and the kid. So I would love to read some kind of response from the officers or the authorities...

 

[micromass]

Now that I think of it. The boy being "mentally challenged" could also mean that the boy is autistic. The thing is that autistic people can be very aggressive and can use much force when they are aggressive. So, if the officer knew that the boy was autistic, then he might have thought (perhaps correctly) that the boy can become quite aggressive and cause him injuries. This is not unrealistic. In that case, I find the use of a taser justified...

 

[Proton Soup]

i don't see how hurkyl's scenario approaches belligerence. a scared, mentally-handicapped kid running away is not someone looking for a fight.

 

[micromass]

i don't see how hurkyl's scenario approaches belligerence. a scared, mentally-handicapped kid running away is not someone looking for a fight.

A scared, autistic kid can be very dangerous!

 

[Proton Soup]

A scared, autistic kid can be very dangerous!

if what exactly? if attacked by strangers? I'm still not hearing any scenarios that suggest the kid initiated anything violent

 

[micromass]

if what exactly? if attacked by strangers? I'm still not hearing any scenarios that suggest the kid initiated anything violent

Well, some people in my family work with autistic people, so I knew their stories. But don't take my word for it. Just google autism + agression or violence. You'll find many hits. Here are some:

http://autism.about.com/b/2010/09/15/autism-and-aggression-your-insights-requested.htm
http://www.thespeciallife.com/autism-and-violence.html
http://www.thespeciallife.com/brenty-boy-dealing-with-autism-and-violence.html
http://www.articlesbase.com/adhd-ar...ur-child039s-anger-1829900.html#axzz1QyiyRGqR

Childs with autism can become violent for no reason at all (well, no reason we would understand). And since they cannot control their force, they will use their maximum force, which makes them very dangerous. If the cops knew this, then they knew it was unsafe to start wrestling with the kid.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I took the kid's threatening to enter a house as the point where confrontation was forced. The officer had to choose between letting the kid go, finally taking action to stop him, or risk the situation escalating into one much more serious.

I picked the taser as the opening move simply because that's what the article describes.


(aside -- there are all sorts of arcane rules involved in dealing with private property. For all I know, letting the kid into a house might actually be the same thing as letting the kid go)



Why the risk? He has already faced a belligerent and dismissive response from the kid and hostile intervention from the neighbors. I don't find any difficulty imagining lots of ways things could spiral out of control if things continued onto confronting the owners of the house or waiting for backup to arrive.


If you and Chris don't see the apparent belligerence and violence in my scenario's kid's words, then you simply aren't imagining them the way they I was when I wrote the scenario. When the kid forces through his stutter, he is literally yelling those words, and this is accompanied with him jerking his face towards the cop. I had also imagined him with a somewhat naturally loud voice. I picked this particular speech impediment because I have actually heard ones that aren't too dissimilar, albeit more subdued. (it's not hard to revise the scenario to one where there kid is expressing genuine belligerence, but with similar words and intents)



(another aside: while I was making a scenario that agreed with the article, I wasn't trying to make one that agreed with the court document)

Police have quite a bit of discretion in how they handle any situation. They are not required to respond to anything with full allowable force or to make arrests even when a law has been violated, or to issue tickets. They often choose to break up drunken pushing and shoving by talking all parties down and then sending them their separate ways, when arrestable offenses have been committed.

So, I'm thinking, let the kid go for the moment and send someone back later to talk, first to the mom, then to the kid. You explain the whole thing to the mom to enlist her aid in teaching the kid the proper way to behave around cops, then talk to the kid in her presence and explain it to him as well, with her there to clarify for him whatever concepts he doesn't grasp.

 

[micromass]

Here is a more scientific reference that talks about what I'm describing:

‘Anger is a natural response to feeling attacked, injured or violated. It’s part of being human; it’s energy seeking expression. Our anger can be our friend. It helps us survive, giving us the strength to fight back or run away when attacked or faced with injustice. In itself, it’s neither good nor bad, but it can be frightening.’

Unfortunately some people with autism become angry and aggressive very quickly and find it hard to deal with. The speed and intensity of their anger can be extreme.

When feeling angry, they do not appear to be able to pause and think of alternative strategies to resolve the situation

‘The rapidity and intensity of anger, often in response to a relatively trivial event, can be extreme.’ (Attwood, 2006).

See http://www.researchautism.net/autis...agnosis_item.ikml?print&ra=10&infolevel=4&t=3 for many references to scientific articles.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here is a more scientific reference that talks about what I'm describing:



See http://www.researchautism.net/autis...agnosis_item.ikml?print&ra=10&infolevel=4&t=3 for many references to scientific articles.

OK. I'm still not sure how it relates to the current situation. i guess we'll just have to wait and see what the courts say (or not say since a minor is involved).

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now that I think of it. The boy being "mentally challenged" could also mean that the boy is autistic. The thing is that autistic people can be very aggressive and can use much force when they are aggressive. So, if the officer knew that the boy was autistic, then he might have thought (perhaps correctly) that the boy can become quite aggressive and cause him injuries. This is not unrealistic. In that case, I find the use of a taser justified...

I don't. It's ridiculous to get so bent out of shape over an autistic kid's traffic violation that you have to call 20 more officers, use the taser, pepper spray, and physical violence. That's not too far away from doing all that to a 'non-compliant' person committing a traffic violation by having a grand mal seizure in the middle of the street. 'He wouldn't respond to my command to move to the sidewalk and he spluttered some spit on me, which showed disrespect for a police officer, so I had to use the taser and call for backup."

 

[micromass]

I don't. It's ridiculous to get so bent out of shape over an autistic kid's traffic violation that you have to call 20 more officers, use the taser, pepper spray, and physical violence. That's not too far away from doing all that to a 'non-compliant' person committing a traffic violation by having a grand mal seizure in the middle of the street. 'He wouldn't respond to my command to move to the sidewalk and he spluttered some spit on me, which showed disrespect for a police officer, so I had to use the taser and call for backup."

The boy ran away, so the police officer had to chase him and catch him. However, an autistic kid can be very violent, therefore the officer could be at risk. It is very, very unsafe to deal with an aggressive autistic person. And autistic persons can become aggressive very suddenly.

If I were the officer, I would have called for back-up too. And perhaps I would have considered using tasers.

The thing is, we know nothing of the POV of the cops, so we can't judge whether they did a good job or used excessive force.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The boy ran away, so the police officer had to chase him and catch him. However, an autistic kid can be very violent, therefore the officer could be at risk. It is very, very unsafe to deal with an aggressive autistic person. And autistic persons can become aggressive very suddenly.

If I were the officer, I would have called for back-up too. And perhaps I would have considered using tasers.

The thing is, we know nothing of the POV of the cops, so we can't judge whether they did a good job or used excessive force.

That's the thing: the officer did not have to chase him! Given the minor nature of the violation and the difficulty of getting the subject to comprehend, why choose the hard way when you could choose the easy way? What was gained from all this when the charges against the kid have been dismissed due to mental incompetence anyway? The traffic ticket, had it been issued, could have been dismissed for the same reason.

A calm, slow, friendly, instructional conversation might get through to an autistic kid: they like rules and procedures, doing things the same every time. (All that contingent on his being autistic).

 

[micromass]

That's the thing: the officer did not have to chase him! Given the minor nature of the violation and the difficulty of getting the subject to comprehend, why choose the hard way when you could choose the easy way? What was gained from all this when the charges against the kid have been dismissed due to mental incompetence anyway? The traffic ticket, had it been issued, could have been dismissed for the same reason.

I have no idea why he chased him, but perhaps he had a good reason for it. I'm not defending the cops here, I just want to know their point-of-view.

A calm, slow, friendly, instructional conversation might get through to an autistic kid: they like rules and procedures, doing things the same every time. (All that contingent on his being autistic).

Autistic kids likes rules and procedures that they are familiar with. You can't force rules on such a person

 

[zoobyshoe]

Autistic kids likes rules and procedures that they are familiar with. You can't force rules on such a person

Exactly why you shouldn't taser, pepper-spray, and beat them into learning to respect the cops: it won't work. A calm, slow, friendly, instructional conversation might stand a chance.

 

[micromass]

Exactly why you shouldn't taser, pepper-spray, and beat them into learning to respect the cops: it won't work. A calm, slow, friendly, instructional conversation might stand a chance.

If the boy needed to be subdued, then this was the only way. Maybe the cops thought that he was a danger to himself or others. You need to know the POV of the cops before making any statements on the matter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If the boy needed to be subdued, then this was the only way. Maybe the cops thought that he was a danger to himself or others. You need to know the POV of the cops before making any statements on the matter.

I said that:

Stipulating all the facts are correct and complete, I don't see how anyone could support the cops here. But, we'd want to hear the whole thing from the cops side, as well.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

(To add to the below scenario, imagine the kid making a violent motion with his head every time he forces his way past the speech impediment)

Cop: Sir, stop the bike.

Kid: Wh, wh... WHAT DO you want?

Cop: I'm going to have to give you a ticket

Kid: I did... did... DIDN'T DO anything.

Cop: *explains violation*

Kid: I'm g.. g... GOING HOME.

*kid gets on bike*

Cop: SIR! DON'T LEAVE THE SCENE!

Kid: T.. t.. TALK TO MY MOM.

*kid bikes off*

*cop chases kid, shouting at him to stop*

*neighbor sees chase, and rushes out of house to intercepts officer*

Neighbor: Stop picking on that kid! He's mentally handicapped.

*neighbor attempts intimidating stare*

Cop: Sir, go back to your home or you will be arrested for interfering.

*Cop goes past neighbor and continues pursuit. Calls for backup. Continues shouting after the kid to stop his flight*

*Kid arrives at home yard*

Cop: Do not enter that house. Stay outside.

*kid starts towards house*

Cop: Stop or I will be forced to restrain you.

*kid nears door*

*Cop fires the taser to stop the kid, then approaches to subdue*

*kid violently resists*

et cetera.


This scenario I lay out above seems fairly consistent with the facts laid out in the article of the opening post. And the cop in my scenario seems to be behaving quite reasonably.

But, you state that you don't care about any of the facts of the scenario other than those outlined in the article of the opening post. You would condemn my scenario's cop without even listening to the whole story?

whether or not the officer was "disrespected" only goes to the state of mind of the officer. There is no legal or procedural prescription for treating someone differently simply because they have "disrespected" you. It does not make the person more in need of chasing, it does not make the person more in need of being caught, except perhaps in the mind of the officer who is angry about it. So no I don't care. It should not have had any significant effect on the performance of the officer.

And your scenario is not reasonable. The child did not need to be chased down. I'm not saying that it was wrong of the officers to do so but it was not strictly necessary. You seem to build your scenario on the idea that each further step was necessarily the next based on the last and that is not appropriate. What is necessary should be determined by the base issue at hand or a direct and immediate threat to the officers safety. So you are saying it was necessary for the officer to catch his perp before he entered the house and that this necessity was most easily accomplished by using a tazer (in your scenario). The question then is: Why is it so necessary to stop a teen who made a traffic violation that you would use a tazer? Would you follow the whole chain of next steps to the point that the officer shoots the kid and kills him? over a traffic violation? Officers should never allow a situation to be escalated to such a disproportionate level beyond the initial circumstances by their own actions.

 

[Hurkyl]

Officers should never allow a situation to be escalated to such a disproportionate level beyond the initial circumstances by their own actions.

You might be interested in knowing there's an easy way to avoid speeding tickets on the highways in my area. If a cop starts to pull you over, simply ignore him -- maybe speed up a bit. The cop might not even try to pull you over if you're already going fast enough, or at least are going faster than everyone else on the road.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You might be interested in knowing there's an easy way to avoid speeding tickets on the highways in my area. If a cop starts to pull you over, simply ignore him -- maybe speed up a bit. The cop might not even try to pull you over if you're already going fast enough, or at least are going faster than everyone else on the road.

Right, because speeding in an automobile is equivalent to a traffic violation on a bicycle. And either way I really do hope that officers in your neighbourhood don't feel the need to taze people because they really need to get arrests for traffic violations.

 

[Hurkyl]

Right, because speeding in an automobile is equivalent to a traffic violation on a bicycle.

I can't fathom the point of this comment.

And either way I really do hope that officers in your neighbourhood don't feel the need to taze people because they really need to get arrests for traffic violations.

Are you still harping on that? Tasing first was just a mistake on my part regarding rules of engagement. It's a hypothetical scenario, modify it -- put in some struggling before the taser was used, or even ignore the struggle all together. Your comments have made it sound like you would even condemn the cop simply for running down the kid. (unless I'm mixing you up with someone else)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jesse and his mom seek damages from the city and the two lead officers, for false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, excessive use of force, infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

Given the seriousness of these charges, I expect we will be hearing the officers' side presently. As for Tourettes, wiki says that it causes physical and vocal tics but does not adversely affect intelligence. I doubt that Tourettes alone would cause the judge to dismiss the charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome"

As for fear that the child might become aggressive or violent, I don't know the law. Yet I doubt it is legal for a police officer to use violent force against a nonviolent citizen because of the category the citizen belongs to. It may not be relevant. The child was charged with assault on a peace officer. Please don't misinterpret the following, the charges against the boy have been dropped. If the boy were to be tried, and the officers claimed that the boy struck them, the burdon of proof would be on the officers. In the case of the lawsuit, if one of the officers claims that the boy struck him before running home, it may be difficult to disprove regardless of whether it is true. Since the mother is suing, the burdon of proof would be on her side. The officer has a great deal of incentive to say that it happened. If jury believes that the boy struck the officer first, then most of the charges in the lawsuit will fail. I am looking forward to hearing the officers' side of the story, though I can guess at some of what will be in there.

I am confused about the 20 officers that showed up. Is there a central dispatcher that controls this? What did the officers tell the dispatcher that caused a depletion of police officers in neighboring jurisdictions? That there was a riot? When was the last time that 20 officers were dispatched to any situation and what were the circumstances?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am confused about the 20 officers that showed up. Is there a central dispatcher that controls this? What did the officers tell the dispatcher that caused a depletion of police officers in neighboring jurisdictions? That there was a riot? When was the last time that 20 officers were dispatched to any situation and what were the circumstances?

At the 24 hour cafe where I hang out they call the cops now and then because a belligerent customer won't leave. (Usually these belligerent people are drunk and came to the cafe after the bars closed.) Anyway, the cops seem to think 4 cruisers need to respond to a call like this, meaning 8 cops, just to tell a drunk to move along home. I don't know why.

 

[B. Elliott]

At the 24 hour cafe where I hang out they call the cops now and then because a belligerent customer won't leave. (Usually these belligerent people are drunk and came to the cafe after the bars closed.) Anyway, the cops seem to think 4 cruisers need to respond to a call like this, meaning 8 cops, just to tell a drunk to move along home. I don't know why.

In the military we call it intimidation by display of excessive force. The more people you have, the safer you are and the likelyhood of the potential agressor attacking also goes down. It can definitely be seen as being excessive because, it is. Purposefully.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In the military we call it intimidation by display of excessive force. The more people you have, the safer you are and the likelyhood of the potential agressor attacking also goes down. It can definitely be seen as being excessive because, it is. Purposefully.

This would explain it, then.

It actually creates the impression, though, a lot of cops have nothing better to do and are responding to the call out of curiosity.

 

[Jack21222]

The boy ran away, so the police officer had to chase him and catch him. However, an autistic kid can be very violent, therefore the officer could be at risk. It is very, very unsafe to deal with an aggressive autistic person. And autistic persons can become aggressive very suddenly.

If I were the officer, I would have called for back-up too. And perhaps I would have considered using tasers.

The thing is, we know nothing of the POV of the cops, so we can't judge whether they did a good job or used excessive force.

So you think it's okay to assault somebody because they *might* get violent? Guess what? If you assault them, they WILL get violent.

If a cop started attacking me, I'd get violent, and I'm not autistic.

There is no scenario in which a kid running into his house justifies a tasering. Every fantasy scenario posted in this thread so far in an attempt to explain the actions of the police falls short of actually justifying the situation.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is no scenario in which a kid running into his house justifies a tasering.

Sigh, kids these days and their lack of imagination. Just off the top of my head I can come up with

• The kid managed to escape from a violent struggle, and is making a break to the house to obtain a weapon
• The kid is trying to commit a violent crime inside

 

[xxChrisxx]

He could have also been dashing into the house to activate his ninja kung fu fighting robot.

 

[B. Elliott]

This would explain it, then.

It actually creates the impression, though, a lot of cops have nothing better to do and are responding to the call out of curiosity.

I'd bet more often than not that is the case. Officers within a given area tend to know each other pretty well. Close friends. If one officer gets a call about having to go handle a drunk causing a scene, his friends will definitely show up if they're closeby and not actively doing anything. Just in case.

The police deal with the more unruly and violent people in socety on a daily basis, so they handle nearly every situation as though it can make a turn for the worst. At any moment. The bad part is that situations such as the one concerning the OP are bound to happen. Policemen and women are still only human and are bound to make mistakes. That and the fact that some people who shouldn't become cops, get to become one.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Policemen and women are still only human and are bound to make mistakes. That and the fact that some people who shouldn't become cops, get to become one.

Police misconduct in San Diego became a big public issue around the beginning of June:

At least nine officers have been investigated since February on allegations ranging from rape under the color of authority to drunken driving to domestic violence.

Lansdowne said the alleged misdeeds have “tarnished the badge” and have taken a toll on the vast majority of officers who do their jobs well.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/27/police-chief-working-curb-officer-misconduct/

The link contains a list of all 9 cases.

Notice in particular #9, which has a certain similarity to the incident in the OP:

May 20: Michael Edwards, who has a previous DUI conviction, was contacted on suspicion of drunken driving while off duty and allegedly walked into his Chula Vista home, refusing to cooperate. He is on unpaid leave, and Chula Vista police are investigating the case.

No mention of his having been tasered, etc when he refused to talk to the investigating officer.

 

[Jack21222]

Sigh, kids these days and their lack of imagination. Just off the top of my head I can come up with

• The kid managed to escape from a violent struggle, and is making a break to the house to obtain a weapon
• The kid is trying to commit a violent crime inside

Even then, he's not being tasered for running into his house, he's being tasered for the violent struggle or the violent crime. I stand by my statement.

 

[Hurkyl]

Even then, he's not being tasered for running into his house, he's being tasered for the violent struggle or the violent crime. I stand by my statement.

Fair enough. But I must say it's in rather poor taste to invoke that technicality, particularly given the content of the thread.

 

[Jack21222]

Fair enough. But I must say it's in rather poor taste to invoke that technicality, particularly given the content of the thread.

I have absolutely no clue what you mean by "the content of the thread." Are you suggesting that:

a) the kid WAS being violent (prior to being attacked)?
b) the kid was tasered not for running into the house, but for the traffic stop?

or was it something else you're trying to say?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Did this incident actually take place? I can't find any news story about it.