Secrets of the City

Expect a run on “Don’t taz me, bro!” t-shirts.

Yeah, let’s run tens of thousands of volts through a person’s body. Shouldn’t cause any problems at all.

Shall they go back to the clubs and the guns, noodleman?

Let’s say you are a Minneapolis police officer. You respond to a domestic violence call and meet Quincy.

He’s big. Really big. He’s also completely out of control*. He won’t calm down or respond to your orders.

What do you do with Q?

* (a hypothetical situation were tasers might be used. I wasn’t there, so I can say with certainty what happened in this particular case)

The moral of the story is that if you threaten your girlfriend with a shot gun you may be tased and die, so don’t threaten your girlfriend with a shotgun.

After people get tased, do they just keep on coming? Because I’m betting not. Maybe they can just turn them down a bit?

From what I have heard, I think in this case, taser use was appropriate. This guy would have likely been shot if a taser wasn’t used. Taser use is only appropriate when deadly force was used in the past. The “Don’t tase me Bro” guy should have never been tased…

Bet that kid in Florida coulda got a lot of money out of that school and the gang of thugs who set upon him.

After people get tased, do they just keep on coming?

I would suspect in a few cases, the answer is “yes.”  It is remarkable what some people can physically do when mentally ill, on serious drugs and/or are enraged.

That’s how we keep coming us coming back to MNSpeak/SOTC.

The Rat with this morning’s funny!

Tru, dat!

Sorta wrecked the joke with bad syntax, but you get the drift.

I thought you opposed syntaxes!

Sorry, here in Minnesota we call them “user fees”

Bet that kid in Florida coulda got a lot of money out of that school and the gang of thugs who set upon him.

I bet you’d lose that bet.

Bob wins the thread.

The kid in Florida was warned that he would be tased if he didn’t stop acting like a douchebag. He didn’t stop, so he was tased. Too bad for him.

I know there are times when people who don’t deserve to be tased/shot/pepper sprayed are and when police do not follow protocol, but most of the time the people who are tased/shot/pepper sprayed deserve it.

So you’re of the opinion that the penalty for being a douchebag is electrocution and possible death?

Especially that guy who was driving drunk and attempting to start his car and run over some pedestrians, but he, too, became a folk hero among the hate da poleeze crowd.

You could map out that little douchebag’s in Florida’s life for him. He wins a big judgement from school and the cops. Starts throwing lavish college parties and buys a lot of friends.

At some point one of them convinces him that he’d be a good radio talk show host. So he does it and gets big, not Rush Limbaugh big, I mean big like Howard Stern. Really big.

Along the way he makes a movie called — guess what? — “Don’t tase me ‘bro.” A piot so insipid and stupid that mainly consists of The Kid and co-star Ashton Kucher smirking, and college age women shaking enormous breasts at the camera.

He settles into an ultra-successful, completly vapid life with his wife, the little sister of Britney Spears.

In time, people forget how he got he got to where he is.

You can question the appropriateness of the use of a taser without being a “hate the poleeze” type, kurtis. The issue, for me, is mission creep: that the taser is not used where a gun would have been used previously, as a less lethal alternative, but instead is used as a tool for social control.

The guy in Florida actually apologized and has no intention of suing anyone, and would have little grounds for doing so if he did. The eyewitness testimony from others at the event, including his close friends, is that he totally had it coming.

So he was creating a situation in which lethal force would have been required?

I support “social control” for people who haven’t figured out how to behave in public by the time they’re in college.

And if he had died from the result of the taser, it would have been justified?

What did he actually do: Try to steal John Kerry’s wallet, pick a fight with the audience?

No: He was being a little creep, waving a book around.

They used a taser where an arm-bar and zip ties would have been sufficient. I’m with Max on this. They are using it as a short cut, but hopefully they are learning that it can be deadly.

I forget the details of the Florida student, but I believe the security guards (over)reacted after he started moving toward the stage and Sen. Kerry.

Devil’s Advocate: What if the kid had a hidden gun and was trying to get within range of the Senator? Whould the tazing be justified? How could the security guards be certain of his intent?

Glad I’m not a cop. My dad was a cop for a few years, but he didn’t like it.

“Justified” is the wrong word.

“So he was creating a situation in which lethal force would have been required?”

If we’re talking about the DJ, I believe he was walking around with a rifle. Considering they could have shot him, I’m sure the cops thought that this would have been a less lethal option.

What if the kid had a hidden gun and was trying to get within range of the Senator?

That’s a a hell of a what if. I’d be a little concerned if police unilaterally decided that anyone who is misbehaving might have a gun on them and needs a tasing.

My advice to the douchebags of the world is to leave when you’re asked to leave. Even the homeless guy at the library in California (which is the least justified tasing of the youtube tasermania) was first asked to leave. So you leave. You get up and you walk out of the door. You fume, you hate the guards, you feel like it was completely unfair. You flail your fists at the wind and wail about the injustice of it all. But you do all that after you leave.

If we’re talking about the DJ, I believe he was walking around with a rifle.

I’m fine wiith the DJ; I’m talking about the kid in Florida.

My advice to the douchebags of the world is to leave when you’re asked to leave.

So you see absolutely no alternative to tasing someone in this circumstances? And don’t think it’s worth even discussing? You actually think electrocuting and possible killing someone is an approrpriate response to tresspassing?

That’s a a hell of a what if.

Perhaps. But maybe we should ask this guy.

Article says he was pepper sprayed at first, but it didn’t stop him. What do you do after that?

Who? The deejay? I think tasing him was entirely appropriate. It reminds us, though, that when you tase someone, there is a chance you will kill them.

max…kurtis is talking about the actions of the taseree, not the taserer

he totally had it coming.

I agree people shouldn’t be douchebags, but that comment makes it sound liek Kurtis was fine with the guy being tased, grote.

I don’t know what the alternatives are, I’m not in law enforcement.

Context was: The eyewitness testimony from others at the event, including his close friends, is that he totally had it coming.

Google pepper spray deaths, there are a lot. I bet a lot of people die from other ways police use to restrain suspects too, like beating them with a club, putting them in holds, and shooting them.

And the WCCO story stated that:
Minneapolis Police statistics show use of tasers injures suspects about 6 percent of the time, and no officers have been hurt using tasers. Other kinds of force have injured suspects nearly half the time and officers 11 percent of the time. Payouts for police misconduct lawsuits involving tasers are also millions of dollars less.

Seems like taser is a good law enforcement tool that isn’t killing that many people, it is just big news when it does.

The question I am interested in is: When is tasing appropriate. It is marketed as being non-lethal, but obviously that is not the case. And I’m not alone in wondering about it — quite a few police organizations have set out very specific rules for the use of a taser, and it can cost a police officer his or her job is he or she violates them.

But those rules are hardly universal, and I think there is a pervasive attitude of “well, if someone got tased, and they were acting like a jerk, they probably had it coming.” But we don’t make decisions about how much force to use based on if someone seems like a douchebag. We make those decisions based on if the amount of force, and the risks associated with it, are justified by the circumstances.

There have been at least 245 cases of people dying after getting tased, kc, as compared to 26 people who have died after getting hit with pepper spray. I am not opposed to using either, but, because of the potential for lethality (and tasers are significantly more potentially lethal than pepper spray), then it’s worth asking when it is appropriate.

@maxsparber The issue, for me, is mission creep: that the taser is not used where a gun would have been used previously, as a less lethal alternative, but instead is used as a tool for social control.

Yes, that was my thought, too, Max, when I posted my original comment. Instead of a taser being a weapon used (emphasis on “weapon”) as a next-to-last-resort, it’s used no differently, it seems, than would be a cattle prod. Granted, Mr. Q’s situation would have ended ugly no matter what was used, but tasing has been used in many other situations where it’s use was questionable if not outright stupid.

Think of it along the lines of Pentagon-thinking: “Well, heck, we got all these weapons now. We should use them. Let’s invade somebody and try them out.”

Tasers should only be used in the case where the only other option is deadly force. In this case it seems like the police did the absolutely correct thing. Do I think you taser someone that is not directly threatening the live of a human? NO. I think that in many cases the police use the taser because they are lazy.

I doubt if the company(ies?) that make tasers would focus much on accidental death and injury in their marketing efforts, max.

Likewise, you are not likely to see much about peanut allegies killing kids in a Jiff commercial.

I think the fact that we have public debate — and the police have clear rules and guidelines — on the use of force, deadly or otherwise, is a good thing.

I think it is hard to judge the circumstances in which a taser is used without actually being involved in the situation. We can all say, they shouldn’t have used it there, but we were not part of the arguement and cannot see how the suspect’s actions were escalating in the situation. Anecdotes are one thing, perception by the officers involved can be very different. this is not to say that all uses of the taser are appropriate by any means, but casting jusgement without being part of the situation is also very hard to do.

I can see looking at tasers and assessing their safety in comparison to other solutions. What I don’t have is a sense of outrage against the police themselves or a belief that tasees are victims or martyrs. Actions have consequences.

I don’t think anyone has expressed outrage against the police in this thread. That being said, I don’t think the cops should taser themselves.

but casting jusgement without being part of the situation is also very hard to do.

Unfortunately, when it comes to policy making, that’s about all we can do unless we simply accept the cops position without debate. Since very few of us have ever (or ever will be) part of those situations.

I’m also not sure how useful all of these “reporters get tased to tell us what it’s like”, or even the tasering that cops may get as part of their training are. Those controlled situations are so unlike real life incidents: the individual has been medically cleared, they’re calm and releaxed, they’re not tasered multiple times, there’s usually sginificant medical help on stand by, etc. Almost none of those are the case in an actual incidident.

Even if they’re douchebags and totally have it coming?

That was @Max regarding cops, but applies equally well @Dave regarding reporters.

I just don’t see a problem with using tasers by law enforcement. They don’t seem to be a real problem or a real deadly force.

 Between 2003-2005, 2002 people died in police custody. Of those 2002, it was estimated that about half were due to police actions. Of those, only 36 were due to tasers.  Tasers do not seem to be a real problem.

Meanwhile, in the same time period, 380 officers were killed and 174,760 officers were assulted.  That seems like a bigger problem to me.

Well, 245 people dying from being tased may seem insignificant to you, kc, but I think the people who were friends or family of the people who died might like to know that when tasers are used, they are used responsibly.

I’m also not sure how useful all of these “reporters get tased to tell us what it’s like”

Because it’s teevee, silly! Why do we need the reporter on the highway overpass to tell us it’s snowing?

Without the pictures, teevee news is just bad radio.

And I’m sure the families of the 174,760 officers who were assulted in the same time that 36 people who were tased died feel better knowing that all options were available to their loved ones so that they didn’t die.

245 people is not a lot of people. That’s all there is to it. Unless you can show me otherwise, those 245 people were commiting crimes that resulted in their deaths. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for what is a small amount of deaths due to police officers protecting themselves.

Unless you can show me otherwise, those 245 people were commiting crimes that resulted in their deaths.

So you’re saying that anytime someone commits a crime, if a police officer does something that results in their deaths, it is justified? Even if the crime is very minor, such a being a nuisance? Even though they haven’t actually gotten to point where they have been charged or sentenced?

And I am not sure why you keep comparing it to the number of police who have died. Will discussing appropriate taser use somehow lead to more police dying?

And how is 245 people not a lot of people? What sort of bizarro math are you using?

No, of course not. But the police need to be able to protect themselves and others. And if the person is commiting a crime, has been warned of what will happen if they don’t comply, and continue to not comply, they deserved to be tased, a non-lethal way to make someone comply, like a choke hold is. A small percentage may die, but they are less likely to die of being tased than the other ways people die in police custody.

And I brought up how many police have died once, so I am not continuing to compare it to how many police have died.

I have brought up how many police have been injured twice (now three times), and that is to contrast how dangerous police work is and why someone may be tased.

No, of course not. But the police need to be able to protect themselves and others. And if the person is commiting a crime, has been warned of what will happen if they don’t comply, and continue to not comply, they deserved to be tased, a non-lethal way to make someone comply, like a choke hold is.

I’m still not following. Are you saying that police can just use a taser whenever they want to, because being a cop is such a dengerous job that we don’t even need to consider when a potentially lethal use of force is justified? Or are you saying that so few people die from tasers that we don’t even need to discuss it, it’s a total non-issue, and so if a few people die from it who were just talking too loud at a public event, so be it, because being a cop is so dangerous that the rights of citizens are secondary?

I can’t believe this is what you mean, but it sure sounds like it.

“And how is 245 people not a lot of people? What sort of bizarro math are you using?”

About 155,000 people die every day world wide. Yearly in the US, 2,400,000+ people die. 17,000 people are murdered every year. 178,000 Americans die from medical or hospital errors every year. 245 taser deaths over 5 or more years is not a lot of deaths.

I’m sorry, but just dismissing 245 deaths by comparing it to how many people die from completely unrelated causes strikes me as hideously callous. It’s like popping into a thread about, say, 20 people dying in a school shooting and saying “Well, how many people died in India today.”

Death isn’t something that should just be shrugged off. If, in each of these cases, the deaths resulted from an appropriate use of force, then, fine. But you haven’t made that case. Instead, you seem to be making the case that any amount of force in response to a crime is appropriate, and who cares if a few people die.

What I said was that if someone is commiting a crime, is warned that they will be tased if they don’t stop what they are doing, and continue to do so, that the police officer has the right to determine if the person should be tased.

Are you suggesting the cop should not be able to use “potentially lethal” force when someone is commiting a crime and/or harming the police officer or others, which would include holds, pepper spray, and other things?

The question I am interested in is: When is tasing appropriate

I usually wait until the 3rd date.

What I’m saying, KC, is that you are actually refusing to discuss when a potentially lethal amount of force is appropriate. Appartenly, it’s whenever a cop warns you it’s about to happen.

What sorts of crimes would it not be appropriate to tase someone?

I’m not saying that “any amount of force in response to a crime is appropriate.” I’m saying, tasing is a reasonable amount of force in response to a crime when the person committing the crime has been sufficiently warned that it may happen. It is a non-lethal weapon.

And you have not made the case that each of these cases death resulted as an inappropriate amount of force. Since we cannot review each of the cases, neither of us will be able to prove either way on this.

Are you suggesting the cop should not be able to use “potentially lethal” force when someone is commiting a crime and/or harming the police officer or others, which would include holds, pepper spray, and other things?

That’s actually not really a right cops have. Most police forces mandate the appropriate use of force, and it’s not up to the officer in the field to just make those decisions on the fly. When lethal force is used, there is almost always an investigation immediately following to determine if that use of force was appropriate. And this is because, as dangerous a job as it is to be a cop, their job is to protect and serve the citizenry, and just giving them unilateral rights to be judge, jury and executioner in the field does not fit the bill.

I have a lot fo respect for cops. I know how hard their job is. I think the issue is that tasers were marketed as non-lethal, when it has turned out they are somewhat lethal. As such, the sorts of situtations in which it is approproate to use them is the sort of thing police departments should, and do, consider, just as they do with the use of a gun.

Yes, a “potentially lethal” amount of force is appropriate when someone is committing a crime and not complying with a police order. Otherwise there will be chaos. “Potentiall lethal” includes tasing, pepper spray, choke holds, taking someone down to the ground, and sending a K9 unit after them. If the police were not allowed to use “potentially lethal” force, they would have no power than to use lethal force, and none of us want that.

And you have not made the case that each of these cases death resulted as an inappropriate amount of force. Since we cannot review each of the cases, neither of us will be able to prove either way on this.

I have not tried to make the case that these deaths resulted from an inappropriate use of force. Discussing the use of a taser is not predicated on whether they have been used inappropriately, just their potential to be used inappropriately.

Yes, a “potentially lethal” amount of force is appropriate when someone is committing a crime and not complying with a police order.

So, jaywalking? Shoplifting?

I wonder if we’ll get through this discussion without a man left unstrawed or a question unbegged.

Well, I try and steer clear of straw men arguments, but I am having a hard time following what KC is saying. It sounds like she is saying that whatever the crime, if a cop tells you to stop and warns that he is going to tase you, all bets are off. And that if this kills you, it’s your own fault. And that we have to presume that every instance of someone dying from a taser resulted from appropriate use, and so why even discuss it?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

I don’t know, Max.

But let’s say instead of a taser, a cop uses his/her baton. If you don’t stop when ordered, you get clubbed.

So I guess Rodney King deserved everything he got?

He got both tasered and clubbed, so I guess he did.

The police officer assaulted numbers are plenty bogus also. Anytime someone touches a cop during an arrest I’ll bet they consider that an assault so they can pile the charges on. I would just as soon not see a cop in my neighborhood, who knows when they are having a bad day and decide to toss you in jail for whatever bullshit charge they make up.

Most officers have less training than you would give your dog before you go hunting.

I just find it disturbing that a person can be executed before a trial, or even an arrest. The only time a taser is appropriate is if lives are in danger and there is no alternative.

if a cop tells you to stop and warns that he is going to tase you, all bets are off.

 It is against the law to obstruct justice and resist arrest. If you are doing either of these, police have the authority to make you comply. Whether the taser is the best tool for the job is debateable. Whether the police have the right and authority to make you comply with the law is not.

It is against the law to obstruct justice and resist arrest. If you are doing either of these, police have the authority to make you comply. Whether the taser is the best tool for the job is debateable. Whether the police have the right and authority to make you comply with the law is not.

I completely agree.

So I guess Rodney King deserved everything he got? He got both tasered and clubbed, so I guess he did.

Where is the ‘rolleyes’ emoticon when you really need it…

This case is well known to be an unjust use of police authority, no one is debating that.

And yet those police officers were found by a jury to have used an appropriate use of force.

“I would just as soon not see a cop in my neighborhood,”

Then don’t ever call one, for any reason. Because according you they’re incompetent and untrustworthy.

I’m with Cedric the Entertainer’s Barbershop speech on Rodney King.

And the verdict was unjust as well.

Agree.

I completely agree.

That’s about all I’m saying, too.

Yes, to be clear, I’m not saying tasers should never be used, and I’m not saying cops don’t have a right to control suspects. But because tasers have shown themselves to be semi-lethal, they should be used only when semi-lethal force is justified. I have seen videos of people getting tased just for refusing to get out of a car; yahoo videos is full of images of cops tasing people for being noncompliant, or for mouthing off, or whatever. And I think having police departments set clear guidelines for the appropriate use of the taser would go a long way toward resolving that.

What is an appropriate way to get somebody out of a room that’s kicking and screaming and fighting back? Or do we just let anyone throwing a tantrum tire themselves out like we do with toddlers?

Yahoo videos? I mean YouTube.

A taser is a method to gain compliance. So max, the type of crime does not necessarily matter. If you are shoplifting and jaywalking, or idling your car for 4 minutes, and you get caught, and you resist arrest or obstruct justice during the process of being detained/ciited for this, yes, it is appropriate for an officer to use a taser as he or she sees fit to gain your compliance. Whether it was actually appropriate is often investigated after the fact, as you mentioned.

and it’s not up to the officer in the field to just make those decisions on the fly.

And where did you get this from? Of course there are general guidelines, but police make these types of decisions on the fly on a daily basis. ‘Officer’s discretion’ is a term I’m sure you’ve heard before.

DougieD, please tell me how you know so much about police training (or the lack thereof). Have you been an officer? Have you worked at a public safety agency? Or are you nodding off and hitting your head on the keyboard?

uh, I mistyped:
yes, it is appropriate for an officer to use a method that he or she sees fit to gain your compliance. Whether taser use was actually appropriate is often investigated after the fact, as you mentioned.

But let’s say instead of a taser, a cop uses his/her baton. If you don’t stop when ordered, you get clubbed.

Again, what is the cop ordering you to stop doing? Jaywalking? public urination? vandalism? assault? murder?

Are all of those equally worthy an individual being subjected to potentially lethal force?

Can we add a requirement that the cop be certain that I actually heard his order to stop (which I probably didn’t) before using potentially lethal force on me?

What is an appropriate way to get somebody out of a room that’s kicking and screaming and fighting back?

There are many ways of dealing with that. If there is a threat of violence, I would say using a taser is appropriate. If they are merely being noisy, pain compliance holds. If they are in prison, there is, of course, the chair, if the teevee show Jail has taught me anything. Of course, it is possible to abuse those too.

“The police officer assaulted numbers are plenty bogus also. Anytime someone touches a cop during an arrest I’ll bet they consider that an assault so they can pile the charges on”

Weelll, that depends. It’s a spectrum between resisting arrest, obstruction of justice, and all out assault. Charges would depend on witness statements and any evidence on the scene.

A taser is a method to gain compliance.

Yes. I don’t think it should be, unless there is a risk of violence. The mounties, for instance, stopped using tasers for compliance, as have other police forces.

Let’s say public urination is not deemed necessary to stop with force. What do you do with someone who won’t stop peeing on your doorstep? Nothing?

And can we please stop saying “potentially lethal force”? Putting somebody in a cop car and driving them to the station is “potentially lethal” if the car gets hit by a train. It’s a vague and loaded term.

So max, the type of crime does not necessarily matter.

I disagree. The type of force absolutely has to be proportionate to the level of crime allegedly being committed.

Would you prefer semi-lethal? Because the taser was marketed as non-lethal, and obviously that’s not particularly true.

No, semi-lethal is also loading the question.

What is your suggestion for discussing tasers that addresses the fact that sometimes people die from them?

Gotta go. I don’t think we’re really that far apart on this, just picked off different sides for the sport of it.

“Tasers” is a good word.

If you are refusing an order, you are obstructing justice. If you refusing to lay on the ground, you are resisting arrest. Cops don’t have all day to try 100 methods to get someone to comply. Sometimes force is necessary. I’ve seen drunk people get arrested for carrying a bottle outside. When the cop confronts them, they get loud and aggressive and refuses orders. The officer then takes them down with force, even though the alleged initial offense was relatively minor. And this is, and has been for some time, legal.
Many departments dictate that their officers issue an order multiple times if possible.

Of course the officer will use his/her discretion when responding to incidents of different severity. Sometimes they are right, cometimes they are not.

I would say they are semi-hemi-demi-lethal.

Sorry for not being here to back you up Max. I agree with everything you’ve said here.

I don’t disagree, Baker. But I don’t think tasers are the right tool for the job here, and I think they entered the arsenal as a compliance tool primarily because they were thought the be far less harmful than they have proven to be.

What is an appropriate way to get somebody out of a room that’s kicking and screaming and fighting back?

I know that negotiating with terrorists is a slippery slope, but I usually threaten to take away story time.

By the way, just to inject some actual data into this discussion, here is the MPD Internal Affairs report on the use of tasers (PDF). It’s interesting reading.  They use “less-than-lethal” to describe the taser, and identify its use as being to “deal with violent subjects and as a means of de-escalating potentially deadly situations.”

That’s a stricter guideline than mere compliance, and one I agree with. I suspect it is why the MPD has had so few complaints regarding their use of the taser — none at the time the report was written.

The type of force absolutely has to be proportionate to the level of crime allegedly being committed.

This is true and I agree with it. This also applies to the proportion used during a resistance of arrest, which might not be the same as the response to the original crime.

A shoplifter (original crime) might run from police (new crime) but they don’t warrant use of a taser. But if once caught they start forcefully resising by punching and kicking, other methods are going to be employed to gain compliance. A taser might not be necessary if there are enough officers around but if there is only one I don’t know that I would disagree with taser use at this point.

So, no, the original crime may not invite a taser, but your level of resistance could justify it. My opinion is that level of resistance would have to be the threat and/or infliction of injury and/or violence on an officer or another civilian.

Herding a drunk frat boy into another room doesn’t necessarily qualify even threatening the use of the taser. “Leave or we tase you” and then the followup should only be used when absolutely necessary.

In the case of the idiot in Florida, I believe that a taser would never have been used if there wasn’t a Senator nearby. I don’t doubt that it was a little overboard but I would also argue that if you start shit up at a political rally, you are taking huge risks.

DougieD, please tell me how you know so much about police training (or the lack thereof). Have you been an officer? Have you worked at a public safety agency? Or are you nodding off and hitting your head on the keyboard?

As far as I can tell in Minneapolis to be a police officer you need a degree from a community college and 14 weeks of Police Academy and this is one of the most rigorous requirements needed by most cities.  In West Fargo no police academy requirement.  So a two year degree and you start at $37K.  I don’t know about you but $37k a year with an AA in criminal science seems like not much training.

Are there any education requirements to be appointed as a NYC Police Officer?

Yes, on or before the date of hire, a candidate must have successfully completed:

60 college credits with a 2.0 G.P.A. from an accredited college or university
OR

2 years of full-time active military service in the United States Armed Forces with an honorable discharge and have a high school diploma or it’s equivalent.

Damn I guess you are right you have to be a damn near fricking genius with years and years of training to be a police officer.

Baker, I thought that since Maz left we didn’t have to put up with the bullshit, “if you haven’t done it you can’t possibly know anything about it” arguments.

Hey! I could be a police officer!

I’ve thought about it, actually, but at 40, I think it might be a little late for me to move from being an arts critic and playwright to walking a beat. But, man, sometimes I really, really want to write a few tickets.

What additional training do you think should be required, Dougie?

Doug,
2 year degree, 14 weeks police acedemy, POST certified, and 6 months field training with an FTO for MPD. Not to mention the numerous on-board training programs that officers go through while they serve. These include things like hostage negotiation, conflict de-escalation, less-lethal training, drug recognition, cultural sensitivity, etc.
Requirements are different at every department. Some are mor lax than others. I know several in the metro area require a 4 year degree.

Regardless, issuing a blanket statement that police officers have the training equivelant to a hunting dog, shows you truly don’t know what you are talking about. Googling something doesn’t mean you know about it. If you continue to issue bullshit statements, I’ll do Maz’ job of calling you out.

Hmm, how about some courses that actually make you think like philosophy or calculus or history.

Here is the link to the NHCC requirements for an AA in criminal justice.

The majority of these classes should have been taken in High School.  3 Credit hours of intro to Ethics.  How about some classes that aren’t introductions to subjects.

I guess I would like people that can do more than sneak by at community college with a “c” average making life and death split second evaluations.

Baker FTW

Max, would a few courses art criticism and stagecraft help the poorly trained police force in Minneapolis?

Hell, classes like that would probably even help me.

These include things like hostage negotiation, conflict de-escalation, less-lethal training, drug recognition, cultural sensitivity, etc.

Considering the number of mentaly ill people that have been killed by the MPD (Barbara Schneider, anyone), or the lousy handling of cases involving deaf people, I’d say that the local PDs need to re-evaluate their training methods.

Check the local schools Max. They may have course on Conflict De-Escalation in the Post-Beckett , Sam Shepherd era.

Help you toward getting your shield.

POST training learning objectives (in addition to 2 year degree, 6 months field training, and in service training:

Category One:
Practical Applications and Techniques
1. Officer Survival
2. Use of Force
3. Firearms Training
4. Defensive Tactics and Physical Control Tactics
5. Vehicle Contacts (Traffic Stops)
6. Emergency Motor Vehicle Operation
7. Traffic Enforcement Code and Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Enforcement
8. Standardized Field Sobriety Testing and Drugs That Impair Driving
9. Traffic Crash Investigation
10. Primary Incident Response
11. Evidence Collection
12. Preliminary Investigation
13. Fire Response Safety, Arson Awareness and Explosives
14. First Aid
15. Blood and Airborne Pathogens
16. Response to Hazardous Material Incidents
17. Controlled Substances and Narcotics
18. Gang Education and Prevention
Category Two:
Criminal Justice System: Civil and Criminal Law
1. Criminal Justice System
2. Constitutional and Criminal Law for Law Enforcement
3. Minnesota Criminal Code
4. Juvenile Law
5. Civil Liability and Process
6. Civil Law
Category Three:
Community Policing
1. Community Policing
2. Diversity
3. Bias Motivated Crime
Category Four:
Victims and Victims’ Rights
1. Domestic Family Abuse and Assault
2. Child Abuse and Protection
3. Vulnerable Adult Investigations
4. Peace Officer Response to Crime Victims
5. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Concerns for Peace Officers
Mar-07
Category Five:
Leading, Managing and Communicating
1. Leadership
2. Ethics
3. Critical Thinking
4. Human Behavior and Crisis Intervention
5. Communications
6. Report Writing
7. Interviewing
8. Courtroom Testimony
9. Media Relations
10. Stress Management
11. Conflict Management and Mediation
12. Computer Application

http://www.dps.state.mn.us/newpost/pdfs/LearningObjectives.pdf

An interesting report on tasers issued by Chief dolan in 2006. Ironically, mnblrmkr, the CIT (crisis intervention team) was formed in response to the shooting of Barbara Schnieder in 2000, as a means of exploring less-lethal methods. An essential part of the CIT program was to give officers less lethal tools in dealing with the mentally ill.

And tyet, there have still been a number of mentally ill individuals killed by the MPD since then.

Of course there have, and it is a shame. But with 400,000 calls for service per year, over a million citizen contacts, and 45,00 arrests per year, it is not a surprise that sometimes things don’t always go well. I’m sure MPD could strengthen their mental illness training. Every police department probably could.

You wanna know something?

Life would be a lot easier for everyone if people didn’t commit crime … especially violent crime.

Of course, that’s a Utopian view. Duh.

I find myself drawn not into a life of crime but into a life watching reality TV crime shows because I have this curiosity about the psychological basis of crime, i.e. what motivates someone to become a habitual criminal? Even if we all had our basic necessities provided for, there would still be some people out there committing felonious crime.

I agree with noodleman. Except for the part about crime TV. I never cared for it. I do like to imagine the folks who end up on the show calling their friends and family, though. “I’m going to be on TV tonight! Totally for real! Watch Fox at 9 PM. I’m not sure when my bit is on, but I’m the guy standing in the driveway in his skivvies swinging a rake at the cop and then getting dropped and handcuffed. My face is blurred out but that’s totally me.”

“Totally for real! Watch Fox at 9 PM. I’m not sure when my bit is on, but I’m the guy standing in the driveway in his skivvies swinging a rake at the cop and then getting dropped and handcuffed.”

Fox 9 could round out the piece with a little insight on the performance:

“And to give his perception on the incident from a thespian performance standpoint, we brought in theater critic and beat policeman, Max Sparber.”

‘The first 48′ on A&E is my crack

“I respect its authenticity, but found the plotting unlikely.”

Baker I know how those on-board training classes work. You show up. No one wants to be there. Breakfest is served. You sign in and then there is no responsibility for actually showing you have learned anything. They file away the attendance report to show you were there and no one thinks about it until the next time you have to go through training.

“Thanks, Max:

“Now, get out of here, you poorly trained gumshoe.”

Baker, you are also comparing what the MPD does. I would guess Minneapolis does have some of the best and most complete officer training in the Nation. That wouldn’t surprise me a bit. But you can’t apply the policy of one department to every one of the departments across this country.

Wasn’t it a 19 or 20 year old officer in Wisconsin that shot and killed a few teenagers because his girl friend broke up with him?

Nor can you assume that officers are poorly trained in every department in this country. It’s always been thought that police jobs don’t always attract the most intellectual people, but it’s also sort of an old notion that all cops just have associate’s degrees.

When you set your standards so low what are people supposed to think?

Is education the only standard that’s required for police work?

I don’t know that intense academic rigor would turn out a better cop or a worse one.

I don’t know, we use education for almost every other line of work. If you can’t write a decent english paper what makes you think that person is going to be able to write up a decent police report that will stand up in court?

“I don’t know that intense academic rigor would turn out a better cop or a worse one.”

Anti-intellectualism swells in the heart of the American bear.

Well, Change is on the way, Kurtis.

“Officer Sparber was distracted during the 21-block foot pursuit by an eccentric man reciting French poetry. The suspects are still at large.”

Fell for the oldest trick in the book.

The old French poet flimflam.

The typically liberal denizens of MnSpeak seem to have some oddly medieval views on appropriate police behavior. Keep fighting the good fight, Max.

I think the discussion is good for the police, too. Inappropriate use of force is a fast way to a lawsuit and a dask job.

I want a dask job.

I doubt medeival police used tasers.

Well, it was Denmark’s first computer.

Swap the e and i in Medieval. Thx.

In Medieval times I’m guessing criminal suspects would yearn to be merely hit with a taser.

There was a Star Trek episode somewhat along the lines of that, wasn’t there, Rat? Kirk couldn’t use his phaser, even on stun, because doing so could change the course of history somewhere out there?

In Medieval times there were no liberal denizens. Or maybe there were, but they were actually witches.

I think these guys qualify as being pretty liberal.

So do these men (and women):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

get a job

The Rifle in question was never found kinda hard to hide a rifle while scuffling with 5 police officers, also Quincy may have been heavy (almost 3 bills) but he stood 5′6″ at most and was not physically imposing in any way. I was the QB of our HS team and I was a more impsosing figure than him at 6′ 170 lbs he was a big Teddy Bear if you read the reports he had no criminal record and was active in the church and the community.

Chestine Lloyd Hutchinson

I don’t think taser is the right tool for the job here, a rifle is an appropriate one in this case…

signature:
don’t misuse power tools