Re: use of taser not justified!!

[Guest guest]

Hi

If this is NOT stopped, then anyone with any sort of

learning disability will be able to be assalted in

this way without any justification. The police will

say it not leathal force and keep on being able to

assault learning disabled people.

DIane Kivi

--- Jane Meyerding wrote:

> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/281395_taser16.html

>

> Taser use on deaf man defended

>

> But his friends criticize action by Seattle police

>

> Wednesday, August 16, 2006

>

> By HECTOR CASTRO

> P-I REPORTER

>

> To Seattle police, it was a near-perfect use of a

> Taser -- subduing a

> man whose behavior might have forced a more violent

> confrontation,

> even a shooting, without the less lethal option.

>

> To Bob Ross' friends, his being electrically stunned

> last month was

> an excessive use of force brought on, they believe,

> because he is

> deaf and did not hear the officer's commands.

>

> " It was one of those things that obviously got out

> of hand, " said Jim

> Lunz, owner of Seattle Pottery Supply and Ross' boss

> for the past 29

> years.

>

> It was a situation that might have been avoided,

> Ross' friends say,

> if police were able to recognize the disabled,

> learning even a basic

> sign such as the one asking a person's name.

>

> Ross' guardians at Guardianship Services of Seattle

> are contacting an

> advocacy group for the disabled, hoping they will

> work to prevent

> another situation like the one experienced by the

> 56-year-old Ross.

>

> " We just want to make sure that this doesn't happen

> to anybody else

> again, " said Sacha with Guardianship Services.

> " This isn't the

> first time that somebody with a disability was

> mistaken for somebody

> who was committing a crime. "

>

> The department will examine whether training needs

> to be enhanced,

> but the officer's Taser use in this case was

> entirely appropriate,

> said assistant Seattle police Chief Kimerer.

> He oversees the

> department's " less lethal " program, which includes

> Tasers, beanbag

> shotguns and training officers in defusing volatile

> situations.

>

> " It strikes me that most officers, when confronted

> with that

> situation, would probably take similar action, "

> Kimerer said. " The

> officer was in uniform, the facts about the

> subject's hearing

> disability were not known to her. She was reacting

> to behavior which

> was very troubling and threatening and needed to be

> dealt with. "

>

> According to police reports, the confrontation began

> just before 8

> a.m. on July 29 at the business on South Hanford

> Street.

>

> Officer r saw a man pushing the front

> door, apparently

> trying to get in. She noted in her report that the

> man " attempted to

> hide behind a large planter. "

>

> Lunz said Ross sometimes sits on the ledge of the

> planters on either

> side of the entrance when he arrives early and it

> could appear he was

> hiding.

>

> The officer drew her gun and ordered Ross away from

> the door. He ignored her.

>

> When he did come out from behind the plants, Ross

> was carrying wooden

> dowels for use in making pots.

>

> r ordered Ross to drop the sticks, but he did

> not respond.

>

> She radioed for backup just as Ross " began to raise

> the sticks and

> come toward me in a quick pace, " according to her

> report.

>

> r holstered her gun and drew her Taser, firing

> when Ross

> continued to approach her.

>

> The two Taser darts, attached to wires that deliver

> a 50,000-volt

> shock, struck Ross in the chest and abdomen, but he

> yanked them out

> and ran.

>

> r gave chase, loaded a fresh cartridge in her

> Taser, and fired

> again, this time hitting him in the chest and thigh.

> Again, Ross

> pulled out the darts and continued to run.

>

> The officer loaded another cartridge, fired again

> and hit Ross in the front.

>

> Just then, Officer arrived. He also

> shot his Taser, and

> this time Ross went down.

>

> But he continued to fight, grabbing handfuls of

> gravel and throwing

> them at the officers.

>

> Two more officers arrived and all four were able to

> restrain Ross,

> using gestures to calm the agitated man.

>

> Takahashi arrived at work that morning and

> found her friend

> strapped to a gurney.

>

> " I thought he must have been hit by a car, " she

> said.

>

> After speaking with police she learned they hadn't

> realized he is deaf.

>

> Ross, she said, " was very gray and nervous. "

>

> He was wrapped in a blanket, there was a bandage on

> his back and his

> shirt was bloody and stained with dirt.

>

> The police, especially r, seemed upset, she

> said.

>

> " She said she just felt sick, " Takahashi said. " She

> felt horrible. "

>

> Police initially considered arresting Ross for

> investigation of

> assault and obstruction, until they realized he was

> disabled.

>

> Supervisors agreed that the use of force was

> correct.

>

> " The officers had no way of knowing the suspect was

> deaf and mute and

> the suspect apparently was unable to communicate

> that to the

> officers, " one supervisor wrote in a review. " The

> suspect could have

> avoided this confrontation by remaining calm and

> still. "

>

> But and others believe police also could have

> handled the matter better.

>

> " There was just too much, too much force, " she said.

>

>

> P-I reporter Castro can be reached at

> or

> hectorcastro@....

>

> © 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

This is a major overreaction. Would you be spouting the same line if it wasn't a

disabled person who was acting that way? Just how much of this argument is

because the person is disabled? The police have to deal with a lot of shit, and

their safety as law enforcers is paramount. They can't stop to see if the person

is disabled, if they believe they are in danger of being attacked. There's just

no time for it. That's the whole point of non-lethal interventions. So you DON'T

kill someone erroneously, yet you can still render them safe.

It's easy to say, " make them learn to identify people with disabilities " , but

not all disabilities are very visible, and there's often simply no time to make

logical assessments. It takes doctors hours to diagnose people with autism, yet

we want the police to be able to do it in minutes, while being confronted with

possibly dangerous behavior. Exactly what do you want to do about it? Force

police to take the time to inspect a person for disability before acting? What

if it were really a burglar who was simply ignoring police instructions, and

really did want to attack you? You wouldn't want or expect the police to take

time to see if they have a disability, because if it weren't the case, it would

put them in danger. We can't put them into possible physical danger simply

because there's a small percentage of people who have a disability and may not

be what they appear to be. They have to do their job and enforce the law, and

using non-lethal weapons like tasers allows

them to err on the side of caution whilst doing so.

Diane Kivi wrote:

Hi

If this is NOT stopped, then anyone with any sort of

learning disability will be able to be assalted in

this way without any justification. The police will

say it not leathal force and keep on being able to

assault learning disabled people.

DIane Kivi

--- Jane Meyerding wrote:

> SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/281395_taser16.html

>

> Taser use on deaf man defended

>

> But his friends criticize action by Seattle police

>

> Wednesday, August 16, 2006

>

> By HECTOR CASTRO

> P-I REPORTER

>

> To Seattle police, it was a near-perfect use of a

> Taser -- subduing a

> man whose behavior might have forced a more violent

> confrontation,

> even a shooting, without the less lethal option.

>

> To Bob Ross' friends, his being electrically stunned

> last month was

> an excessive use of force brought on, they believe,

> because he is

> deaf and did not hear the officer's commands.

>

> " It was one of those things that obviously got out

> of hand, " said Jim

> Lunz, owner of Seattle Pottery Supply and Ross' boss

> for the past 29

> years.

>

> It was a situation that might have been avoided,

> Ross' friends say,

> if police were able to recognize the disabled,

> learning even a basic

> sign such as the one asking a person's name.

>

> Ross' guardians at Guardianship Services of Seattle

> are contacting an

> advocacy group for the disabled, hoping they will

> work to prevent

> another situation like the one experienced by the

> 56-year-old Ross.

>

> " We just want to make sure that this doesn't happen

> to anybody else

> again, " said Sacha with Guardianship Services.

> " This isn't the

> first time that somebody with a disability was

> mistaken for somebody

> who was committing a crime. "

>

> The department will examine whether training needs

> to be enhanced,

> but the officer's Taser use in this case was

> entirely appropriate,

> said assistant Seattle police Chief Kimerer.

> He oversees the

> department's " less lethal " program, which includes

> Tasers, beanbag

> shotguns and training officers in defusing volatile

> situations.

>

> " It strikes me that most officers, when confronted

> with that

> situation, would probably take similar action, "

> Kimerer said. " The

> officer was in uniform, the facts about the

> subject's hearing

> disability were not known to her. She was reacting

> to behavior which

> was very troubling and threatening and needed to be

> dealt with. "

>

> According to police reports, the confrontation began

> just before 8

> a.m. on July 29 at the business on South Hanford

> Street.

>

> Officer r saw a man pushing the front

> door, apparently

> trying to get in. She noted in her report that the

> man " attempted to

> hide behind a large planter. "

>

> Lunz said Ross sometimes sits on the ledge of the

> planters on either

> side of the entrance when he arrives early and it

> could appear he was

> hiding.

>

> The officer drew her gun and ordered Ross away from

> the door. He ignored her.

>

> When he did come out from behind the plants, Ross

> was carrying wooden

> dowels for use in making pots.

>

> r ordered Ross to drop the sticks, but he did

> not respond.

>

> She radioed for backup just as Ross " began to raise

> the sticks and

> come toward me in a quick pace, " according to her

> report.

>

> r holstered her gun and drew her Taser, firing

> when Ross

> continued to approach her.

>

> The two Taser darts, attached to wires that deliver

> a 50,000-volt

> shock, struck Ross in the chest and abdomen, but he

> yanked them out

> and ran.

>

> r gave chase, loaded a fresh cartridge in her

> Taser, and fired

> again, this time hitting him in the chest and thigh.

> Again, Ross

> pulled out the darts and continued to run.

>

> The officer loaded another cartridge, fired again

> and hit Ross in the front.

>

> Just then, Officer arrived. He also

> shot his Taser, and

> this time Ross went down.

>

> But he continued to fight, grabbing handfuls of

> gravel and throwing

> them at the officers.

>

> Two more officers arrived and all four were able to

> restrain Ross,

> using gestures to calm the agitated man.

>

> Takahashi arrived at work that morning and

> found her friend

> strapped to a gurney.

>

> " I thought he must have been hit by a car, " she

> said.

>

> After speaking with police she learned they hadn't

> realized he is deaf.

>

> Ross, she said, " was very gray and nervous. "

>

> He was wrapped in a blanket, there was a bandage on

> his back and his

> shirt was bloody and stained with dirt.

>

> The police, especially r, seemed upset, she

> said.

>

> " She said she just felt sick, " Takahashi said. " She

> felt horrible. "

>

> Police initially considered arresting Ross for

> investigation of

> assault and obstruction, until they realized he was

> disabled.

>

> Supervisors agreed that the use of force was

> correct.

>

> " The officers had no way of knowing the suspect was

> deaf and mute and

> the suspect apparently was unable to communicate

> that to the

> officers, " one supervisor wrote in a review. " The

> suspect could have

> avoided this confrontation by remaining calm and

> still. "

>

> But and others believe police also could have

> handled the matter better.

>

> " There was just too much, too much force, " she said.

>

>

> P-I reporter Castro can be reached at

> or

> hectorcastro@....

>

> © 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi

I wrote what I did, because I have been in many

situations, where if the police had had the use of

Tasar's they would have used them on me. Since I

cannot read any form of non verbal communication, I

cannot respond to the officer's attempt to calm me

down, thus they will always over react to me.

I think what I said was very mild!!

DIane Kivi

--- shea laver wrote:

> This is a major overreaction. Would you be spouting

> the same line if it wasn't a disabled person who was

> acting that way? Just how much of this argument is

> because the person is disabled? The police have to

> deal with a lot of shit, and their safety as law

> enforcers is paramount. They can't stop to see if

> the person is disabled, if they believe they are in

> danger of being attacked. There's just no time for

> it. That's the whole point of non-lethal

> interventions. So you DON'T kill someone

> erroneously, yet you can still render them safe.

> It's easy to say, " make them learn to identify

> people with disabilities " , but not all disabilities

> are very visible, and there's often simply no time

> to make logical assessments. It takes doctors hours

> to diagnose people with autism, yet we want the

> police to be able to do it in minutes, while being

> confronted with possibly dangerous behavior. Exactly

> what do you want to do about it? Force police to

> take the time to inspect a person for disability

> before acting? What if it were really a burglar who

> was simply ignoring police instructions, and really

> did want to attack you? You wouldn't want or expect

> the police to take time to see if they have a

> disability, because if it weren't the case, it would

> put them in danger. We can't put them into possible

> physical danger simply because there's a small

> percentage of people who have a disability and may

> not be what they appear to be. They have to do their

> job and enforce the law, and using non-lethal

> weapons like tasers allows

> them to err on the side of caution whilst doing so.

>

> Diane Kivi wrote:

> Hi

>

> If this is NOT stopped, then anyone with any sort of

> learning disability will be able to be assalted in

> this way without any justification. The police will

> say it not leathal force and keep on being able to

> assault learning disabled people.

>

> DIane Kivi

>

> --- Jane Meyerding wrote:

>

> > SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

> >

>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/281395_taser16.html

> >

> > Taser use on deaf man defended

> >

> > But his friends criticize action by Seattle police

> >

> > Wednesday, August 16, 2006

> >

> > By HECTOR CASTRO

> > P-I REPORTER

> >

> > To Seattle police, it was a near-perfect use of a

> > Taser -- subduing a

> > man whose behavior might have forced a more

> violent

> > confrontation,

> > even a shooting, without the less lethal option.

> >

> > To Bob Ross' friends, his being electrically

> stunned

> > last month was

> > an excessive use of force brought on, they

> believe,

> > because he is

> > deaf and did not hear the officer's commands.

> >

> > " It was one of those things that obviously got out

> > of hand, " said Jim

> > Lunz, owner of Seattle Pottery Supply and Ross'

> boss

> > for the past 29

> > years.

> >

> > It was a situation that might have been avoided,

> > Ross' friends say,

> > if police were able to recognize the disabled,

> > learning even a basic

> > sign such as the one asking a person's name.

> >

> > Ross' guardians at Guardianship Services of

> Seattle

> > are contacting an

> > advocacy group for the disabled, hoping they will

> > work to prevent

> > another situation like the one experienced by the

> > 56-year-old Ross.

> >

> > " We just want to make sure that this doesn't

> happen

> > to anybody else

> > again, " said Sacha with Guardianship

> Services.

> > " This isn't the

> > first time that somebody with a disability was

> > mistaken for somebody

> > who was committing a crime. "

> >

> > The department will examine whether training needs

> > to be enhanced,

> > but the officer's Taser use in this case was

> > entirely appropriate,

> > said assistant Seattle police Chief Kimerer.

> > He oversees the

> > department's " less lethal " program, which includes

> > Tasers, beanbag

> > shotguns and training officers in defusing

> volatile

> > situations.

> >

> > " It strikes me that most officers, when confronted

> > with that

> > situation, would probably take similar action, "

> > Kimerer said. " The

> > officer was in uniform, the facts about the

> > subject's hearing

> > disability were not known to her. She was reacting

> > to behavior which

> > was very troubling and threatening and needed to

> be

> > dealt with. "

> >

> > According to police reports, the confrontation

> began

> > just before 8

> > a.m. on July 29 at the business on South Hanford

> > Street.

> >

> > Officer r saw a man pushing the front

> > door, apparently

> > trying to get in. She noted in her report that the

> > man " attempted to

> > hide behind a large planter. "

> >

> > Lunz said Ross sometimes sits on the ledge of the

> > planters on either

> > side of the entrance when he arrives early and it

> > could appear he was

> > hiding.

> >

> > The officer drew her gun and ordered Ross away

> from

> > the door. He ignored her.

> >

> > When he did come out from behind the plants, Ross

> > was carrying wooden

> > dowels for use in making pots.

> >

> > r ordered Ross to drop the sticks, but he did

> > not respond.

> >

> > She radioed for backup just as Ross " began to

> raise

> > the sticks and

> > come toward me in a quick pace, " according to her

> > report.

> >

> > r holstered her gun and drew her Taser, firing

> > when Ross

> > continued to approach her.

> >

> > The two Taser darts, attached to wires that

> deliver

> > a 50,000-volt

> > shock, struck Ross in the chest and abdomen, but

> he

> > yanked them out

> > and ran.

> >

> > r gave chase, loaded a fresh cartridge in her

> > Taser, and fired

> > again, this time hitting him in the chest and

> thigh.

> > Again, Ross

> > pulled out the darts and continued to run.

> >

> > The officer loaded another cartridge, fired again

> > and hit Ross in the front.

> >

> > Just then, Officer arrived. He also

> > shot his Taser, and

> > this time Ross went down.

> >

> > But he continued to fight, grabbing handfuls of

> > gravel and throwing

> > them at the officers.

> >

> > Two more officers arrived and all four were able

> to

> > restrain Ross,

> > using gestures to calm the agitated man.

> >

> > Takahashi arrived at work that morning and

> > found her friend

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Ok, you are talking from personal experience and from your own specific

situation, where your disability would possibly cause police to taser you. You

need to look at the mathematics of the situation, though. The likelihood of a

person acting in a dangerous way, having a disability. The likelihood of danger

to the officer if they fail to render a person safe, who does not have a

disability. The likelihood of danger to the victim by using non-lethal weapons.

Then there's the possibility that even if the victim has a disability, that they

are still a danger to the officer. It's not about the 1%'s. It's about the

99%'s. If the police are going to be placed in situations where they have to

make a call, they have to call on the side of the greatest possibility. If in

99% of instances that police will be in a situation where someone appears to

pose a danger, there is a real danger, then they should react that same way in

every situation. Since non-lethal weapons are generally

non-lethal, then this renders that scenario an efficient and safe method of

law-enforcement.

The person with a disability might be hurt, stunned, or whatnot after being

tasered, but compare that with what might happen if they make the call that they

are disabled and pose no actual danger, yet they do pose danger. They have to

make the same call every time.

Diane Kivi wrote:

Hi

I wrote what I did, because I have been in many

situations, where if the police had had the use of

Tasar's they would have used them on me. Since I

cannot read any form of non verbal communication, I

cannot respond to the officer's attempt to calm me

down, thus they will always over react to me.

I think what I said was very mild!!

DIane Kivi

--- shea laver wrote:

> This is a major overreaction. Would you be spouting

> the same line if it wasn't a disabled person who was

> acting that way? Just how much of this argument is

> because the person is disabled? The police have to

> deal with a lot of shit, and their safety as law

> enforcers is paramount. They can't stop to see if

> the person is disabled, if they believe they are in

> danger of being attacked. There's just no time for

> it. That's the whole point of non-lethal

> interventions. So you DON'T kill someone

> erroneously, yet you can still render them safe.

> It's easy to say, " make them learn to identify

> people with disabilities " , but not all disabilities

> are very visible, and there's often simply no time

> to make logical assessments. It takes doctors hours

> to diagnose people with autism, yet we want the

> police to be able to do it in minutes, while being

> confronted with possibly dangerous behavior. Exactly

> what do you want to do about it? Force police to

> take the time to inspect a person for disability

> before acting? What if it were really a burglar who

> was simply ignoring police instructions, and really

> did want to attack you? You wouldn't want or expect

> the police to take time to see if they have a

> disability, because if it weren't the case, it would

> put them in danger. We can't put them into possible

> physical danger simply because there's a small

> percentage of people who have a disability and may

> not be what they appear to be. They have to do their

> job and enforce the law, and using non-lethal

> weapons like tasers allows

> them to err on the side of caution whilst doing so.

>

> Diane Kivi wrote:

> Hi

>

> If this is NOT stopped, then anyone with any sort of

> learning disability will be able to be assalted in

> this way without any justification. The police will

> say it not leathal force and keep on being able to

> assault learning disabled people.

>

> DIane Kivi

>

> --- Jane Meyerding wrote:

>

> > SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

> >

>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/281395_taser16.html

> >

> > Taser use on deaf man defended

> >

> > But his friends criticize action by Seattle police

> >

> > Wednesday, August 16, 2006

> >

> > By HECTOR CASTRO

> > P-I REPORTER

> >

> > To Seattle police, it was a near-perfect use of a

> > Taser -- subduing a

> > man whose behavior might have forced a more

> violent

> > confrontation,

> > even a shooting, without the less lethal option.

> >

> > To Bob Ross' friends, his being electrically

> stunned

> > last month was

> > an excessive use of force brought on, they

> believe,

> > because he is

> > deaf and did not hear the officer's commands.

> >

> > " It was one of those things that obviously got out

> > of hand, " said Jim

> > Lunz, owner of Seattle Pottery Supply and Ross'

> boss

> > for the past 29

> > years.

> >

> > It was a situation that might have been avoided,

> > Ross' friends say,

> > if police were able to recognize the disabled,

> > learning even a basic

> > sign such as the one asking a person's name.

> >

> > Ross' guardians at Guardianship Services of

> Seattle

> > are contacting an

> > advocacy group for the disabled, hoping they will

> > work to prevent

> > another situation like the one experienced by the

> > 56-year-old Ross.

> >

> > " We just want to make sure that this doesn't

> happen

> > to anybody else

> > again, " said Sacha with Guardianship

> Services.

> > " This isn't the

> > first time that somebody with a disability was

> > mistaken for somebody

> > who was committing a crime. "

> >

> > The department will examine whether training needs

> > to be enhanced,

> > but the officer's Taser use in this case was

> > entirely appropriate,

> > said assistant Seattle police Chief Kimerer.

> > He oversees the

> > department's " less lethal " program, which includes

> > Tasers, beanbag

> > shotguns and training officers in defusing

> volatile

> > situations.

> >

> > " It strikes me that most officers, when confronted

> > with that

> > situation, would probably take similar action, "

> > Kimerer said. " The

> > officer was in uniform, the facts about the

> > subject's hearing

> > disability were not known to her. She was reacting

> > to behavior which

> > was very troubling and threatening and needed to

> be

> > dealt with. "

> >

> > According to police reports, the confrontation

> began

> > just before 8

> > a.m. on July 29 at the business on South Hanford

> > Street.

> >

> > Officer r saw a man pushing the front

> > door, apparently

> > trying to get in. She noted in her report that the

> > man " attempted to

> > hide behind a large planter. "

> >

> > Lunz said Ross sometimes sits on the ledge of the

> > planters on either

> > side of the entrance when he arrives early and it

> > could appear he was

> > hiding.

> >

> > The officer drew her gun and ordered Ross away

> from

> > the door. He ignored her.

> >

> > When he did come out from behind the plants, Ross

> > was carrying wooden

> > dowels for use in making pots.

> >

> > r ordered Ross to drop the sticks, but he did

> > not respond.

> >

> > She radioed for backup just as Ross " began to

> raise

> > the sticks and

> > come toward me in a quick pace, " according to her

> > report.

> >

> > r holstered her gun and drew her Taser, firing

> > when Ross

> > continued to approach her.

> >

> > The two Taser darts, attached to wires that

> deliver

> > a 50,000-volt

> > shock, struck Ross in the chest and abdomen, but

> he

> > yanked them out

> > and ran.

> >

> > r gave chase, loaded a fresh cartridge in her

> > Taser, and fired

> > again, this time hitting him in the chest and

> thigh.

> > Again, Ross

> > pulled out the darts and continued to run.

> >

> > The officer loaded another cartridge, fired again

> > and hit Ross in the front.

> >

> > Just then, Officer arrived. He also

> > shot his Taser, and

> > this time Ross went down.

> >

> > But he continued to fight, grabbing handfuls of

> > gravel and throwing

> > them at the officers.

> >

> > Two more officers arrived and all four were able

> to

> > restrain Ross,

> > using gestures to calm the agitated man.

> >

> > Takahashi arrived at work that morning and

> > found her friend

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi

If you are on the autistic spectrum, the chances of

your behavour being misunderstood by the police, given

the ways in which they are trained is over 50%.

In the country in which I live the police are not

routinly armed. To get an armed responce take about 10

minutes. This allows sufficent time for a re-think by

the officier. They also require the support, of the

most senior officer on duty.

If taser use becomes routine, in situations where they

would currently use say 4 officiers to subdue a

person, they would for reasons of cost saving be

pressure to use the tasar as first responce.

The Tasas is called non leathal, but there are some

medical onditions where tasar use will be leathal in

all cases, and others where it's use will be leathal

in many cases.

On balance I prefer the current state where leathal

force can be used, only when all other methods have

been concidered, by highly trained police fire arms

officiers only.

DIane Kivi

--- shea laver wrote:

> Ok, you are talking from personal experience and

> from your own specific situation, where your

> disability would possibly cause police to taser you.

> You need to look at the mathematics of the

> situation, though. The likelihood of a person acting

> in a dangerous way, having a disability. The

> likelihood of danger to the officer if they fail to

> render a person safe, who does not have a

> disability. The likelihood of danger to the victim

> by using non-lethal weapons. Then there's the

> possibility that even if the victim has a

> disability, that they are still a danger to the

> officer. It's not about the 1%'s. It's about the

> 99%'s. If the police are going to be placed in

> situations where they have to make a call, they have

> to call on the side of the greatest possibility. If

> in 99% of instances that police will be in a

> situation where someone appears to pose a danger,

> there is a real danger, then they should react that

> same way in every situation. Since non-lethal

> weapons are generally

> non-lethal, then this renders that scenario an

> efficient and safe method of law-enforcement.

> The person with a disability might be hurt,

> stunned, or whatnot after being tasered, but compare

> that with what might happen if they make the call

> that they are disabled and pose no actual danger,

> yet they do pose danger. They have to make the same

> call every time.

>

> Diane Kivi wrote:

> Hi

>

> I wrote what I did, because I have been in many

> situations, where if the police had had the use of

> Tasar's they would have used them on me. Since I

> cannot read any form of non verbal communication, I

> cannot respond to the officer's attempt to calm me

> down, thus they will always over react to me.

>

> I think what I said was very mild!!

>

> DIane Kivi

>

> --- shea laver wrote:

>

> > This is a major overreaction. Would you be

> spouting

> > the same line if it wasn't a disabled person who

> was

> > acting that way? Just how much of this argument is

> > because the person is disabled? The police have to

> > deal with a lot of shit, and their safety as law

> > enforcers is paramount. They can't stop to see if

> > the person is disabled, if they believe they are

> in

> > danger of being attacked. There's just no time for

> > it. That's the whole point of non-lethal

> > interventions. So you DON'T kill someone

> > erroneously, yet you can still render them safe.

> > It's easy to say, " make them learn to identify

> > people with disabilities " , but not all

> disabilities

> > are very visible, and there's often simply no time

> > to make logical assessments. It takes doctors

> hours

> > to diagnose people with autism, yet we want the

> > police to be able to do it in minutes, while being

> > confronted with possibly dangerous behavior.

> Exactly

> > what do you want to do about it? Force police to

> > take the time to inspect a person for disability

> > before acting? What if it were really a burglar

> who

> > was simply ignoring police instructions, and

> really

> > did want to attack you? You wouldn't want or

> expect

> > the police to take time to see if they have a

> > disability, because if it weren't the case, it

> would

> > put them in danger. We can't put them into

> possible

> > physical danger simply because there's a small

> > percentage of people who have a disability and may

> > not be what they appear to be. They have to do

> their

> > job and enforce the law, and using non-lethal

> > weapons like tasers allows

> > them to err on the side of caution whilst doing

> so.

> >

> > Diane Kivi wrote:

> > Hi

> >

> > If this is NOT stopped, then anyone with any sort

> of

> > learning disability will be able to be assalted in

> > this way without any justification. The police

> will

> > say it not leathal force and keep on being able to

> > assault learning disabled people.

> >

> > DIane Kivi

> >

> > --- Jane Meyerding

> wrote:

> >

> > > SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

> > >

> >

>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/281395_taser16.html

> > >

> > > Taser use on deaf man defended

> > >

> > > But his friends criticize action by Seattle

> police

> > >

> > > Wednesday, August 16, 2006

> > >

> > > By HECTOR CASTRO

> > > P-I REPORTER

> > >

> > > To Seattle police, it was a near-perfect use of

> a

> > > Taser -- subduing a

> > > man whose behavior might have forced a more

> > violent

> > > confrontation,

> > > even a shooting, without the less lethal option.

> > >

> > > To Bob Ross' friends, his being electrically

> > stunned

> > > last month was

> > > an excessive use of force brought on, they

> > believe,

> > > because he is

> > > deaf and did not hear the officer's commands.

> > >

> > > " It was one of those things that obviously got

> out

> > > of hand, " said Jim

> > > Lunz, owner of Seattle Pottery Supply and Ross'

> > boss

> > > for the past 29

> > > years.

> > >

> > > It was a situation that might have been avoided,

> > > Ross' friends say,

> > > if police were able to recognize the disabled,

> > > learning even a basic

> > > sign such as the one asking a person's name.

> > >

> > > Ross' guardians at Guardianship Services of

> > Seattle

> > > are contacting an

> > > advocacy group for the disabled, hoping they

> will

> > > work to prevent

> > > another situation like the one experienced by

> the

> > > 56-year-old Ross.

> > >

> > > " We just want to make sure that this doesn't

> > happen

> > > to anybody else

> > > again, " said Sacha with Guardianship

> > Services.

> > > " This isn't the

> > > first time that somebody with a disability was

> > > mistaken for somebody

> > > who was committing a crime. "

> > >

> > > The department will examine whether training

> needs

> > > to be enhanced,

> > > but the officer's Taser use in this case was

> > > entirely appropriate,

> > > said assistant Seattle police Chief

> Kimerer.

> > > He oversees the

> > > department's " less lethal " program, which

> includes

> > > Tasers, beanbag

> > > shotguns and training officers in defusing

> > volatile

> > > situations.

> > >

> > > " It strikes me that most officers, when

> confronted

> > > with that

> > > situation, would probably take similar action, "

> > > Kimerer said. " The

> > > officer was in uniform, the facts about the

> > > subject's hearing

> > > disability were not known to her. She was

> reacting

> > > to behavior which

> > > was very troubling and threatening and needed to

> > be

> > > dealt with. "

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Yes, but what are the chances of police encountering an autistic person? Let's

say it's about 5%, and then factor in the chances of that autistic person not

being as they appear to be, ie not being dangerous when they appear so,

approximately 60%, then the probability drops to about 3%. That leaves 97% of

other cases where police have to make the call based on how the person is

acting. We can't, and we shouldn't, be asking police to hesitate and risk

themselves for something that they will only encounter 3% of the time. And if

they did hesitate, how are they to know? As I said, it takes doctors hours to

diagnose, yet we want police officers to do it in minutes.

Taser use is not used willynilly, and it will never be allowed to be used that

way. If there were four officers present at the time, the taser would probably

never have been used. The officer was a woman, the victim was a man, and if the

man was aggressive she probably couldn't hope to subdue him any other way.

You stated that your comment was rather mild, but it made the wild claim that

police would start assaulting disabled people without justification. The only

justification they need is for someone to appear aggressive and dangerous to the

officer's person. If you encountered someone like that, what would you do? Just

stand and hope they weren't? Maybe, maybe not. But a police officer has to

uphold the law, and because of that they are made into targets for many people.

In the end, their safety has to be paramount, and if you appear aggressive and

appear armed, they have the right to subdue you with necessary force.

Diane Kivi wrote:

Hi

If you are on the autistic spectrum, the chances of

your behavour being misunderstood by the police, given

the ways in which they are trained is over 50%.

In the country in which I live the police are not

routinly armed. To get an armed responce take about 10

minutes. This allows sufficent time for a re-think by

the officier. They also require the support, of the

most senior officer on duty.

If taser use becomes routine, in situations where they

would currently use say 4 officiers to subdue a

person, they would for reasons of cost saving be

pressure to use the tasar as first responce.

The Tasas is called non leathal, but there are some

medical onditions where tasar use will be leathal in

all cases, and others where it's use will be leathal

in many cases.

On balance I prefer the current state where leathal

force can be used, only when all other methods have

been concidered, by highly trained police fire arms

officiers only.

DIane Kivi

--- shea laver wrote:

> Ok, you are talking from personal experience and

> from your own specific situation, where your

> disability would possibly cause police to taser you.

> You need to look at the mathematics of the

> situation, though. The likelihood of a person acting

> in a dangerous way, having a disability. The

> likelihood of danger to the officer if they fail to

> render a person safe, who does not have a

> disability. The likelihood of danger to the victim

> by using non-lethal weapons. Then there's the

> possibility that even if the victim has a

> disability, that they are still a danger to the

> officer. It's not about the 1%'s. It's about the

> 99%'s. If the police are going to be placed in

> situations where they have to make a call, they have

> to call on the side of the greatest possibility. If

> in 99% of instances that police will be in a

> situation where someone appears to pose a danger,

> there is a real danger, then they should react that

> same way in every situation. Since non-lethal

> weapons are generally

> non-lethal, then this renders that scenario an

> efficient and safe method of law-enforcement.

> The person with a disability might be hurt,

> stunned, or whatnot after being tasered, but compare

> that with what might happen if they make the call

> that they are disabled and pose no actual danger,

> yet they do pose danger. They have to make the same

> call every time.

>

> Diane Kivi wrote:

> Hi

>

> I wrote what I did, because I have been in many

> situations, where if the police had had the use of

> Tasar's they would have used them on me. Since I

> cannot read any form of non verbal communication, I

> cannot respond to the officer's attempt to calm me

> down, thus they will always over react to me.

>

> I think what I said was very mild!!

>

> DIane Kivi

>

> --- shea laver wrote:

>

> > This is a major overreaction. Would you be

> spouting

> > the same line if it wasn't a disabled person who

> was

> > acting that way? Just how much of this argument is

> > because the person is disabled? The police have to

> > deal with a lot of shit, and their safety as law

> > enforcers is paramount. They can't stop to see if

> > the person is disabled, if they believe they are

> in

> > danger of being attacked. There's just no time for

> > it. That's the whole point of non-lethal

> > interventions. So you DON'T kill someone

> > erroneously, yet you can still render them safe.

> > It's easy to say, " make them learn to identify

> > people with disabilities " , but not all

> disabilities

> > are very visible, and there's often simply no time

> > to make logical assessments. It takes doctors

> hours

> > to diagnose people with autism, yet we want the

> > police to be able to do it in minutes, while being

> > confronted with possibly dangerous behavior.

> Exactly

> > what do you want to do about it? Force police to

> > take the time to inspect a person for disability

> > before acting? What if it were really a burglar

> who

> > was simply ignoring police instructions, and

> really

> > did want to attack you? You wouldn't want or

> expect

> > the police to take time to see if they have a

> > disability, because if it weren't the case, it

> would

> > put them in danger. We can't put them into

> possible

> > physical danger simply because there's a small

> > percentage of people who have a disability and may

> > not be what they appear to be. They have to do

> their

> > job and enforce the law, and using non-lethal

> > weapons like tasers allows

> > them to err on the side of caution whilst doing

> so.

> >

> > Diane Kivi wrote:

> > Hi

> >

> > If this is NOT stopped, then anyone with any sort

> of

> > learning disability will be able to be assalted in

> > this way without any justification. The police

> will

> > say it not leathal force and keep on being able to

> > assault learning disabled people.

> >

> > DIane Kivi

> >

> > --- Jane Meyerding

> wrote:

> >

> > > SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

> > >

> >

>

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/281395_taser16.html

> > >

> > > Taser use on deaf man defended

> > >

> > > But his friends criticize action by Seattle

> police

> > >

> > > Wednesday, August 16, 2006

> > >

> > > By HECTOR CASTRO

> > > P-I REPORTER

> > >

> > > To Seattle police, it was a near-perfect use of

> a

> > > Taser -- subduing a

> > > man whose behavior might have forced a more

> > violent

> > > confrontation,

> > > even a shooting, without the less lethal option.

> > >

> > > To Bob Ross' friends, his being electrically

> > stunned

> > > last month was

> > > an excessive use of force brought on, they

> > believe,

> > > because he is

> > > deaf and did not hear the officer's commands.

> > >

> > > " It was one of those things that obviously got

> out

> > > of hand, " said Jim

> > > Lunz, owner of Seattle Pottery Supply and Ross'

> > boss

> > > for the past 29

> > > years.

> > >

> > > It was a situation that might have been avoided,

> > > Ross' friends say,

> > > if police were able to recognize the disabled,

> > > learning even a basic

> > > sign such as the one asking a person's name.

> > >

> > > Ross' guardians at Guardianship Services of

> > Seattle

> > > are contacting an

> > > advocacy group for the disabled, hoping they

> will

> > > work to prevent

> > > another situation like the one experienced by

> the

> > > 56-year-old Ross.

> > >

> > > " We just want to make sure that this doesn't

> > happen

> > > to anybody else

> > > again, " said Sacha with Guardianship

> > Services.

> > > " This isn't the

> > > first time that somebody with a disability was

> > > mistaken for somebody

> > > who was committing a crime. "

> > >

> > > The department will examine whether training

> needs

> > > to be enhanced,

> > > but the officer's Taser use in this case was

> > > entirely appropriate,

> > > said assistant Seattle police Chief

> Kimerer.

> > > He oversees the

> > > department's " less lethal " program, which

> includes

> > > Tasers, beanbag

> > > shotguns and training officers in defusing

> > volatile

> > > situations.

> > >

> > > " It strikes me that most officers, when

> confronted

> > > with that

> > > situation, would probably take similar action, "

> > > Kimerer said. " The

> > > officer was in uniform, the facts about the

> > > subject's hearing

> > > disability were not known to her. She was

> reacting

> > > to behavior which

> > > was very troubling and threatening and needed to

> > be

> > > dealt with. "

>

=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> This is a major overreaction. Would you be spouting

> the same line if it wasn't a disabled person who

> was acting that way?

That's the entire point. The person acting that way was acting

that way because of a disability.

The crime: The disabled person didn't have police training.

(read on..)

> The police have to deal with a lot of shit, and their safety

> as law enforcers is paramount.

That doesn't entitle them to taser a deaf person or anyone else

who doesn't actively threaten them. There are times when I feel

threatened by a situation but I'm not permitted to use violence.

The exception (both police and civilian) is if the person is

actively threatening me. A second exception, applicable to

police, is when a person did something provocative which the

person should expect would evoke police response. Something

more provocative than sitting by pottery.

But it's more egregious than that. Reading from the article:

> > The officer drew her gun and ordered Ross away from

> > the door. He ignored her.

Okay, so " He ignored her " indicates the officer was threatened?

I " threaten " people every day in that manner and don't expect to

be tasered for it.

> > When he did come out from behind the plants, Ross

> > was carrying wooden dowels ...

> > r ordered Ross to drop the sticks, but he did

> > not respond. ...

Notice he had sticks but nobody suggested he was threatening

anyone with the sticks, or even that the sticks appeared to be

carried for threatening purposes. If someone comes from under a

car holding a wrench, is that person making a threat?

> > She radioed for backup just as Ross " began to raise

> > the sticks and

> > come toward me in a quick pace, " according to her

> > report.

That's the sole expression of a threat in the entire story.

(That and the victim's not having had police training.)

> > r holstered her gun and drew her Taser, firing

> > when Ross continued to approach her.

> > ... struck Ross in the chest and abdomen, but he

> > yanked them out and ran.

" ran " . Not " ran toward the officer " , but ran away. Now it

becomes a bizzare sport:

> > r gave chase, loaded a fresh cartridge in her

> > Taser, and fired again, this time hitting him in

> > the chest and thigh.

At this point, the victim is pure entertainment for the cop.

She obviously knew something was wrong and was " going for it "

anyway. She was in the chase and was going to take him down.

> > Again, Ross pulled out the darts and continued to run.

> >

> > The officer loaded another cartridge, fired again

> > and hit Ross in the front.

> >

> > Just then, Officer arrived. He also

> > shot his Taser, and this time Ross went down.

(the story goes on to explain that he was restrained, although

it doesn't offer details.) Then after finding out the mistake,

they considered a cover-up:

> > Police initially considered arresting Ross for

> > investigation of assault and obstruction, until

> > they realized he was disabled.

> > " The officers had no way of knowing the suspect was

> > deaf and mute

So does not knowing specifically what was wrong make it okay to

attack the victim?

> > and the suspect apparently was unable to communicate

> > that to the officers, " one supervisor wrote in a review.

Okay, I'm not a doctor, but I can tell you that one

characteristic of being deaf is having difficulty in

communicating with hearing people.

As to being guilty of not having police training:

> > " The suspect could have avoided this confrontation

> > by remaining calm and still. "

Was he supposed to " remain calm and still " when being tasered or

before he even knew what was going on?

> > They can't stop to see if the person is disabled, if

> > they believe they are in danger of being attacked.

Actually they can, because " being in danger of being attacked "

is quite different from " being attacked " or even " being

threatened with attack " .

To answer the question - If the citizen isn't making a threat,

but the officer is not sure about her safety, she can do what

anyone else does -- walk away.

But since she is also a police officer charged with maintaining

order (i.e., such things as keeping people safe from random

attacks), she could call for help. She did call for help, but

concurrently with a precipitious attack.

Hence, I would suggest a police tool invented by Marconi. Call

in, state the situation, and get backup. At that point the

danger is slight, and someone can figure out that the citizen is

not responding. They may not know why, but they can see that

the person is not responding. They needn't do anything unless

the citizen threatens them.

> > There's just no time for it. That's the whole point of

> > non-lethal interventions.

No, there's all the time in the world. This person was holding

two dowels and not indicating a threat of any kind.

Pardon the cynicism, but my geography is poor. I didn't realize

that Fallujah is on the Puget Sound.

Hence Diane wrote:

> Diane Kivi wrote:

>

> If this is NOT stopped, then anyone with any sort of

> learning disability will be able to be assalted in

> this way without any justification. The police will

> say it not leathal force and keep on being able to

> assault learning disabled people.

-s

[Guest guest]

>> That's the entire point. The person acting that way was acting that

>> way because of a disability. The crime: The disabled person didn't

>> have police training. (read on..)

>

> But that's not the point, don't you see? The point is that people who

> act that way in 90% of cases don't have a disability that's causing

> them to.

wait a minute, let's examine who the police encounter every day:

1-: the population at large which for the most part is not dangerous in

any way but there can be a violent one or 2 sometime (try to give a $400

speeding ticket to a man who just lost his job..)

2-: criminals (which usually represent a danger but not always), how

many criminal there is in a given population of 100 ?

3-: handicapped people, autistics: 1 in 166 according to the ASA, as for

the blind, the deaf, or anything else, i don't know.

I don't think the Pareto principle (your 90% figure) apply here because

the cop's primary encounter is in the first category but the other 2 can

be a significant percentage and I'm nowhere near sure that there's many

more criminal than handicapped person.

> Even if they have disability causing them to, they can still

> be dangerous regardless.

Just anyone can be dangerous, the problems is that the cop's primary

instinct was to choose a course of action which will likely defuse just

about any situation instead of using appropriate measure for the

situation (worst case: how about using the bludgeon to hit the hands to

have him drop his stick and right around that, you take one of his hand

and put it behind his back ?)

>>> She radioed for backup just as Ross " began to raise the sticks

>>> and come toward me in a quick pace "

how high was he raising the stick ? did he only want to give the stick

to the cop or attack her.

quick pace: one can be slightly nervous and just try to find a quick way

to defuse the situation (by giving the stick to the cop for example).

> She did not attack him until his behavior started indicating

> aggressive behavior.

there's some good question here:

1-: how did she came to the conclusion that he was aggressive ?

I understand that the previous behavior is potentially aggressive (the

cop are usually unprepared for cases where a person want to give the

" arms " to the cop instead of just dropping them on the floor) but there

is a HUGE distinction between being considered aggressive and really

being harmful.

2-: does that aggressiveness warrant the use of a taser ?

> No, but the situation beforehand is entirely different. You are

> making a very autistic mistake here,

Please don't mix the local / global processing stuff in there, it has

been found out that autistics can be as good in the global picture as in

the local stuff:

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/129/7/1789

> Except he wasn't just standing there holding two dowling rods. He was

> rushing towards the police officer

I walk at 7km/h and according to most people, this is rushing out and if

i had these dowling rods in hand, i would have likely raised these at

chest height toward offering them.

The article doesn't specify that detail but it could accurately

represent the situation who happened there. in any case, give it some

though.

Alain

[Guest guest]

> > (the story goes on to explain that he was restrained, although

> > it doesn't offer details.) Then after finding out the mistake,

> > they considered a cover-up:

>

> I bet you also believe that JFK assassination was a coverup and

> that Roswell really was a spacecraft crashing to earth.

I don't know what things are like in Australia, but here in the

United States, I can assure you that police departments attempting

to cover up the misdeeds of their officers is not at all a rare

occurrence. I even know of one particular instance from when I was

a kid living in Honolulu, when a woman named Au was murdered,

and the whole situation became a really big story. There was

speculation in the media that the murder had been committed by an

off-duty police officer. The Honolulu Police Department did an

internal investigation and found out that it was, indeed, one of

their officers. Rather than prosecuting him, however, they buried

their findings and simply allowed the officer to resign. (Note:

they didn't even fire him, they simply allowed him to quit.) To

this day, the murder is listed as " unsolved " , even though the police

know exactly who did it, and that man is still walking free among

us. The only reason I even know about it is that the current HPD

chief of police was a friend of the family, and he told us about it.

> Police are there to PREVENT crime, not only to wait until it

> happens and then apprehend the person who committed it.

Again: not sure about your part of the world, but here, preventing

crime is actually a very small part of a police officer's work.

Virtually everything they do is involved with either investigating

crimes after they've happened or being summoned to a crime that has

already commenced and is in progress. It's quite rare for an

officer to be present someplace before a crime begins and to become

involved with stopping it, simply because criminals rarely choose to

try to commit a crime when there's a police officer nearby.

[Guest guest]

> 3-: handicapped people, autistics: 1 in 166 according to the ASA, as

> for the blind, the deaf, or anything else, i don't know.

A common American figure I hear is that one in five people is

disabled. That's a lot of people.

[Guest guest]

> Again: not sure about your part of the world, but here, preventing

> crime is actually a very small part of a police officer's work.

> Virtually everything they do is involved with either investigating

> crimes after they've happened or being summoned to a crime that has

> already commenced and is in progress. It's quite rare for an

> officer to be present someplace before a crime begins and to become

> involved with stopping it, simply because criminals rarely choose to

> try to commit a crime when there's a police officer nearby.

And quite a number of them have wasted their time entirely, responding

to calls that I was [insert one: walking down the street, sitting

waiting for someone, going to the convenience store] and shouldn't be.

[Guest guest]

> And quite a number of [police officers] have wasted their time entirely,

responding

> to calls that I was [insert one: walking down the street, sitting

> waiting for someone, going to the convenience store] and shouldn't be.

That's only happened to me once, but yes, bothering innocent people who are

otherwise just going about their business but are perceived as -- what's

the word I'm looking for? -- is another thing that police spend a lot of

time on.

--Parrish

--------------------------------------------------------------------

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .

[Guest guest]

> That's only happened to me once, but yes, bothering innocent people

> who are otherwise just going about their business but are perceived as

> -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- is another thing that police

> spend a lot of time on.

Is the word you're looking for 'deviant'?

[Guest guest]

> > That's only happened to me once, but yes, bothering innocent people

> > who are otherwise just going about their business but are perceived as

> > -- what's the word I'm looking for? -- is another thing that police

> > spend a lot of time on.

> Is the word you're looking for 'deviant'?

Or " abnormal " , or something along those lines, yes. Thank you.

--Parrish

--------------------------------------------------------------------

mail2web - Check your email from the web at

http://mail2web.com/ .

[Guest guest]

Parrish wrote:

>Again: not sure about your part of the world, but here, preventing

>crime is actually a very small part of a police officer's work.

>Virtually everything they do is involved with either investigating

>crimes after they've happened or being summoned to a crime that has

>already commenced and is in progress.

Also, of course, everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty,

which rather conflicts with the " subdue first and ask questions

later " attitude.

Jane

[Guest guest]

> Except for the behavior beforehand that was indicative of someone

> breaking and entering.

I agree that sort of thing is why the policewoman approached

the man in the first place. The issue is several things that

happened afterward.

> In all this time, how is she supposed to be able to see that

> he is mute and deaf?

She's not. All she need realize is that something's wrong.

Among other things, she can take steps to protect herself until

she determines the situation.

Much of the debate is whether the taser used at several stages

fell into that category. Unfortunately, we won't know. What we

do know is that there was more than one tasering performed,

ultimately by multiple officers.

> Such a situation is congruous with someone breaking and

> entering, and after noticing the police officer, trying

> to escape by incapacitating or scaring the police officer.

That's possible but still only one of many possibilities.

My take on the statistics is that there is a certain small

percentage of people who are criminals and a smaller percentage

who are dangerous criminals. Likewise there is a certain

percentage of disabled people and a smaller percentage of

disabled people who may have actions which could be confused

with dangerous criminals.

That means that the decision is not, " We have a criminal here,

but what is the percentage chance we randomly ran into a

disabled person. " Instead, it's " We have someone acting

strangely. What is the explanation? "

> You have to take into consideration the sexes of the

> parties of this situation. She was female, and he was male.

No, she was a trained female policewoman. A random female is

not permitted to taser someone because she considers him

dangerous.

> Quite probably, the taser was the only way she would be

> able to subdue a male criminal.

I think that's the issue -- was she trying to subdue a criminal

or was she just in it for the chase. If she was trying to

subdue a criminal, she'd need to attach it to a crime.

That's part of the puzzle. If she really suspected a crime in

progress, then she would have observed and not approached.

Instead, she was trying to find out what the man was up to.

Both are legitimate actions; she chose the later.

So the initial response was to the person approaching her, which

she claimed appeared aggressive. If that was the end of it,

then there would be little debate. What happened next was the

person running and the policewoman running him down with the aid

of the taser. That's the sort of thing one would expect when a

crime has been committed; not when someone acts unexpectedly.

So at this point, it's really hard to say. Perhaps the building

looked like it had been burgularized or some other crime

committed. If that was the case, then there's only an issue of

how to persue.

What is bothering me and others is that the man

1) " looked suspicious " rather than either

2) " looked suspicious and there was strong suggestion that a

crime had been committed " or

3) " looked like he was committing a crime " .

From this debate, it appears that 1) 2) and 3) are possible.

That leaves the remaining factor -- how does that affect

disabled people, and is taking the possibility of disability

into consideration significant in such circumstances?

SOME THOUGHT

Adding one more complication -- are there some disabilities (not

deafness) ignored because they are regarded as less worthy of

protection?

- s

[Guest guest]

Hi

I would have behaved in the same way that Ross, did in

the situation! That says more about my disability,

than me as a person. I have on many occasions

encounters major misunderstandings by police officers.

One other point, because the Tasar is seen as non

lethal, not always so, it will be used in situations

where the police now use multiple officer to subdue a

person. Using say 4 officers, or one with a Tasar the

cost staving of using a Tasar are obvious. This will

not be lost of the police, with the pressures

financial and otherwise that they are under.

What is needed is more training on how to handle

unusual situations, implications of variuos

disabilities, and pressure for more police on the

streets. Officers working within a fixted area, would

also help, as they would get to know people in the

area, particularly those who are diferent from the

norm, such as people with AS.

DIane Kivi

--- Stan's Computer wrote:

>

>

> > Except for the behavior beforehand that was

> indicative of someone

> > breaking and entering.

>

> I agree that sort of thing is why the policewoman

> approached

> the man in the first place. The issue is several

> things that

> happened afterward.

>

> > In all this time, how is she supposed to be able

> to see that

> > he is mute and deaf?

>

> She's not. All she need realize is that something's

> wrong.

> Among other things, she can take steps to protect

> herself until

> she determines the situation.

>

> Much of the debate is whether the taser used at

> several stages

> fell into that category. Unfortunately, we won't

> know. What we

> do know is that there was more than one tasering

> performed,

> ultimately by multiple officers.

>

> > Such a situation is congruous with someone

> breaking and

> > entering, and after noticing the police officer,

> trying

> > to escape by incapacitating or scaring the police

> officer.

>

> That's possible but still only one of many

> possibilities.

>

> My take on the statistics is that there is a certain

> small

> percentage of people who are criminals and a smaller

> percentage

> who are dangerous criminals. Likewise there is a

> certain

> percentage of disabled people and a smaller

> percentage of

> disabled people who may have actions which could be

> confused

> with dangerous criminals.

>

> That means that the decision is not, " We have a

> criminal here,

> but what is the percentage chance we randomly ran

> into a

> disabled person. " Instead, it's " We have someone

> acting

> strangely. What is the explanation? "

>

> > You have to take into consideration the sexes of

> the

> > parties of this situation. She was female, and he

> was male.

>

> No, she was a trained female policewoman. A random

> female is

> not permitted to taser someone because she considers

> him

> dangerous.

>

> > Quite probably, the taser was the only way she

> would be

> > able to subdue a male criminal.

>

> I think that's the issue -- was she trying to subdue

> a criminal

> or was she just in it for the chase. If she was

> trying to

> subdue a criminal, she'd need to attach it to a

> crime.

>

> That's part of the puzzle. If she really suspected

> a crime in

> progress, then she would have observed and not

> approached.

> Instead, she was trying to find out what the man was

> up to.

> Both are legitimate actions; she chose the later.

>

> So the initial response was to the person

> approaching her, which

> she claimed appeared aggressive. If that was the

> end of it,

> then there would be little debate. What happened

> next was the

> person running and the policewoman running him down

> with the aid

> of the taser. That's the sort of thing one would

> expect when a

> crime has been committed; not when someone acts

> unexpectedly.

>

> So at this point, it's really hard to say. Perhaps

> the building

> looked like it had been burgularized or some other

> crime

> committed. If that was the case, then there's only

> an issue of

> how to persue.

>

> What is bothering me and others is that the man

>

> 1) " looked suspicious " rather than either

>

> 2) " looked suspicious and there was strong

> suggestion that a

> crime had been committed " or

>

> 3) " looked like he was committing a crime " .

>

> From this debate, it appears that 1) 2) and 3) are

> possible.

>

> That leaves the remaining factor -- how does that

> affect

> disabled people, and is taking the possibility of

> disability

> into consideration significant in such

> circumstances?

>

> SOME THOUGHT

>

> Adding one more complication -- are there some

> disabilities (not

> deafness) ignored because they are regarded as less

> worthy of

> protection?

>

> - s

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi

What you have to factor in also is the fact that other

people, through ignorance, or malace often start the

process, by calling the police and telling the police

what has happened, puting their own slant on what has

happened.

I entered a Walmart store to buy a sandwich and

something to drink. A member of staff didn't like the

way I looked at him. Some of us with AS stare at

people a lot, and we have no clue that we are doing

so. Many NT's find this difficult.

To cut a long story, the result is he made an

emergency call to the police, 4 officiers came and

physically brought me to the floor, and restrained me

and took me to the police station.

I frightened that with the police using a Tasar, they

would act first, because the Tasar is simple, check,

and so called non lethal, AND think second.

DIane Kivi

--- Jane Meyerding wrote:

> Parrish wrote:

> >Again: not sure about your part of the world, but

> here, preventing

> >crime is actually a very small part of a police

> officer's work.

> >Virtually everything they do is involved with

> either investigating

> >crimes after they've happened or being summoned to

> a crime that has

> >already commenced and is in progress.

>

> Also, of course, everyone is presumed innocent until

> proven guilty,

> which rather conflicts with the " subdue first and

> ask questions

> later " attitude.

>

> Jane

>

__________________________________________________