[Zyreal]

So first off, this quote was my response, followed by a rebuttal, followed by yet another post from me.

It was in regards to this article

Hearing Impaired Man Tased by Police
(Wichita, KS)

Donnell Williams had just gotten out of the bath tub, wearing only a towel around his waist, when he turned the corner to see guns pointing right at him.

"I ain't never been so scared," says Williams.

Police forced entry into Williams home while responding to a shooting, but it turned out to be a false call. They had no idea at the time the call wasn't real and that Williams is hearing impaired. Without his hearing aid he is basically deaf.

"I kept going to my ear yelling that I was scared. I can't hear! I can't hear!"

Officers were worried about their own safety because at the time it appeared Williams was refusing to obey their commands to show his hands. That's when they shot him with a Taser.

Deputy Chief Robert Lee of the Wichita Police Department says, "This one occurred on the worst of calls, that being a shooting. The first few minutes getting control of the scene are very, very important."

Once the facts were all sorted out, officers repeatedly apologized to Williams. Police wish it never happened, but with the information they had at the time, their choices were limited.

"Do I wish there would have been some way they were notified in advance this gentleman was hearing impaired? I certainly do. No one is happy with the way it worked out," says Lee.

Williams was not hurt in the incident. Police say the shooting call came from a cell phone but they still don't know who made it or why.

The case is being reviewed by the department.

Now here is my response in the thread. It seems appropriate to post here since a lot of you guys are asking similar questions.

I know this is pretty much a losing battle, but somethings just need to be said.

First off, yes, these cops were idiots. I can't see any way this guy was enough of a threat to warrant the tasering.

Our profession gets entirely too much crap from people that simply don't understand what it's like. I'm not saying any person saying "those cops did wrong" doesn't understand, or is giving crap. Things like that need to be said. What I am tired of is the hatred. The people that run with things for the wrong reasons. The people that say "The only good cop is a dead cop".

There are racist cops, plenty of them.

There are idiot cops, more than plenty of them.

There are corrupted cops, a few, less than 5%. (This varies by department, most have none, but some of the bigger departments can't avoid it.)

POST (Police-Officer-Standards-and-Training) requirements vary from state to state. California having the most intense, and decreasing from there.

99.9% of what cops do isn't news worthy, hell, most cops are never a part of an incident like this.

But yes, there are cops that are bad at their jobs. Lots. But nowhere near a majority.

There are so many points to be made, and I'll try to cover a few.

First off, cop's have one of the most difficult jobs in the world. So much of the adult population hates us. To the point that a small percentage want us dead. Or just want us dead to make sure they don't have to do time for crimes they have committed. So you always have that paranoia. As well as having to deal with people that make it plainly obvious that they detest you, even having you around. People fight you, even when you do things COMPLETELY by the book, and even times when you try to give them a break.

Secondly, you can't always keep out the bad seeds. If someone sucks at their job in most other professions, they get fired cause they don't do it right, and maybe make a few people upset. In police work, there is a national incident made, and people cry out about abuse of power, and how cops always overstep their bounds. You pretty much can't get more intensive than a police background check. It involves talking to most of their family, friends, their old bosses, ex-girlfriends, co-workers, and references. Followed by an intensive psych test, as well as a psych evaluation by a psychiatrist. Then a lie-detector test, going over pretty much any possible crime, or any other things that could prevent them from being a good police officer. Thing is, lie-detectors can be beaten, so can psych evals. You can't insure that every police officer is going to be a good one. But the thing is, you catch most of the bad ones.

Thirdly, take the Utah taser thing. If you isolate the moment of the tasering, if those few seconds were all you saw, he was right. The guy turned away, wasn't following commands, and started reaching into his pocket. Most cops would have tasered him in that circumstance. No way of knowing if the guy is reaching for a gun. So on one hand you have a guy tasered, that is 5 seconds of pain, for not listening to directions while in custody. On the other hand, if you don't taser, and there is a gun in his pocket, you're dead. Which would you pick? It's only so bad because the officer wasn't very accommodating during the lead up.

Fourth, the people that are angry at police about the laws, guess what, officers uphold laws that were made by the people that the population voted for.

Fifth, you want to take away tasers, that have saved thousands of lives, as well as reducing injuries on tons more? So instead of a jolt that is painful for 5 seconds then dissipates, he could have been hit with pepper spray, which causes intense buring that lasts for hours, as well as the feeling of not being able to breathe. Or maybe struck with a baton? Horrible aching, brusing and possible broken bones. I know what I'd rather have. And if you say they shouldn't have done anything in the first place, I agree, but without the taser it would have been even worse. This problem wasn't caused by the equipment. PEBKAC anyone?

Sixth, you want tasers elevated to the point of personal firearm on the escalation scale? So if you're an officer, and someone is grabbing a gun, which are you going to go with? The taser? It's MUCH less accuate than a gun, and if even one of the barbs miss it's completely useless, and you have to fully reload a cartridge before you can fire it again. You're dead. Or if one of the barbs gets hung up on clothes too far from skin, it won't work either. You're dead. Or are you going to go for your gun?

Seventh, officers try to stay on the side of caution. And I'm sure you would too. Take the Utah encounter. Lets say that half the time people go in their pocket when resiting arrenst they are going for a firearm or other weapon, and the other half is nothing, or a wallet. So lets say this incident happens 30 times. With caution, 30 people get tased, 15 when they were "only" disobeying orders while in custody. But guess what, 30 officers go home to their family. Yeah, those 15 people had to endure 5 seconds of pain and some minor scrapes and bruises from the fall. Well, they should have listened to the officer when he gave them commands, using power that the officials the person elected gave them. Upholding laws that the person was breaking. But all 30 officers go home to their wives, their children, their family and friends. Or, if you don't go with caution, yeah, those 15 people have no tasering, but probably get put in a hold, which are pretty painful, but necessary to gain control of the person. Could last more than 5 seconds, maybe not. But you also have 15 officers dead. 15 officers that won't be coming home to their family and friends. 15 officers whose LIVES have been ended.

I was responded to by this person.

PolloDiablo:

How often are reports made and appropriate action taken when these racist, idiot, or corrupt cops do step over the line? If you see your buddy intentionally cross the line with someone, maybe act a little rougher than he should, or abuse his right to search and seizure when he clearly didn't have the right to do so, do you report this action? Or do you simply let it go, further perpetuating this idea that cops are always going to cover their own asses before worrying about the suspects rights?

I think this is the real issue most people have with law enforcement. A small amount of corruption or misconduct is going to be expected in any profession or organization, especially one such as the police force; but much of the public is under the impression that all cops, even the good ones, are always going to look out for their buddies before the well-being of a civilian. People feel like incidents such as this happen and nothing is done, no discipline is given, no lessons are learned. The public is under the impression that the cops are, to a certain degree, untouchable ; and that amount of control and potential for abuse is pretty frightening and unsettling, and those kind of feelings breed a certain inherent mistrust and disdain for Law Enforcement in general. It's sad that things work that way, and that good officers are given a bad rap because of it, but until the police decide to start working on their PR and actually dealing with cops that do break the law it's a feeling that will simply continue to fester.

Police agencies need to show the public that they are willing to harshly, but appropriately, discipline those officers that do cross the line. I'm not talking about public lashings or any kind of unfair punishment, I just mean showing the public that cops will be held up to the same laws that they're meant to enforce and that abuse of power will not be tolerated under any circumstances. This secrecy and "looking out for your buddy" mentality, while admirable in a "Band of Brothers" kind of way, only further perpetuates the idea that cops feel like they're above the law or beyond reproach. The public needs to see that there is an actual concern for their well-being and protection of their rights, and then maybe you would see a turn-around in people's opinions of cops.

And then my response.

First off, thank you for your response, it's great to know that there are people that can have civil discourse about these things without resulting to mud-slinging.

To be honest, A LOT more cops than you think are dismissed for the reasons you state. Thing is, it really is the media. If an officer is dismissed, half the time the paper runs a little three line article buried under the police blotter. "Officer gets dismissed after investigation into Taser incident." And 90% of the population would consider it a waste(as well as being extremely tactless) of taxpayer money to erect a billboard that says "Officer so-and-so is no longer with the department due to Tasering, and he now faces criminal charges"

Example, a while ago, and officer used a Taser on the back of someones neck to get him to release a drug balloon from his anus. (Little known fact about the Taser, placed on the back of the neck, you defecate) This of course made front page news. He was suspended immediately, and I don't know a single officer that thought he was acting properly. So of course, the media slams everyone involved, including Taser intl, and the guy's Taser instructor. What they COMPLETELY failed to report, was the firing, and subsequent FELONY charges that were filed. And they ran a TINY article buried in the paper when he was found guilty.

In recent times, especially with anyone coming out of the academy in the last 5-10 years, there isn't that whole "Cover for each other" mentality. In fact, I had a similar conversation with a retired officer, he said that policing was so different now, he just doesn't understand it. That there are so many officers willing to "rat-out" other officers. I told him, I couldn't imagine it any other way, because how are people supposed to respect when we enforce laws on them, when we don't on ourselves. Who does it then? The citizens? Anarchy and vigilantism help no one.

Modern Generation cops are much quicker to avoid corruption, and yet the public hates us more because any mistake is more visible. So although police ethics, use of force, accountability has GREATLY increased over the past ten years, people think it's getting worse, because there is more news of it. So people hate the police more, and it really starts to get to some people.

Just realize, that 90% of mistakes cops make are made national news. Even then, thats only hundreds of officers a year, and most of those aren't serious mistakes, or mistakes at all, just media only putting half the details, and when they all come out later and show innocence, the media fails to print that. And when you realize that there are hundreds of thousands of officers(hell, NYPD alone is 36,000 sworn officers). That percentage is pretty low.

We're trying people, trust me.

And just to add, tasers don't kill people. There has never been a death ruled to be caused by a Taser. People have been Tasered, and then later died, but from unrelated causes. Any death from a Taser would be immediate. The thing is, Tasers are used thousands of times a month, and yet "___ dies after being tasered" only happens a few times a year.

It's called excited delirium. And its usage has been around since long before the Taser came on the scene. And while some people argue that it's a "conpiriscy to cover up police brutality" the thing is, almost 100% of the people who die of it "tend to be overweight males, high on drugs, and display extremely erratic and violent behavior. But victims also share something else in common. The disorder seems to manifest itself when people are under stress, particularly when in police custody, and is often diagnosed only after the victims die. " - ABC News.

Yes, there is a high percentage of this occurring in police custody, but common sense dictates that if someone is "high on drugs, and display[ing] extremely erratic and violent behavior" that the police would probably be called, and they would take them into custody, and yes, this would be a perfect situation to use a Taser in.

And again, it was used before Tasers were used, and people used to attribute it to pepper-spray, or handcuffs. Tasers just happen to be the newest thing to blame it on.