A video at LiveLeak of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, Police Officer Robert Whitman repeatedly tasing an unknown man, referred to as “Jeremy” in a video taken by his wife who said she was pregnant, frames a question of whether the use of a Taser should be permissible as a tool of compliance.
Clearly, the individual had no weapon and presented no threat of harm to the officers, though he wasn’t sufficiently complying with their commands. At Delaware Online, the specter is raised that something preceding the video might justify the use of force.
What viewers don’t see, according to one witness who called the police, is that previously the man had been physically fighting with his wife, then wrestled with arriving officers for several minutes before they subdued him.This rationalization, however, does nothing to justify what happened afterward. That the guy may have been violent earlier has nothing to do with the use of force after the fighting ended. Rather, this is like news reports that tell of a person’s prior offenses in order to smear them and distract attention from the only relevant issue: was the tasing appropriate at the time it occurred. What happened earlier, the day before or any other time has nothing to do with the propriety of the use of a Taser on a person who presented no threat at the time.
The video reflects the use of a Taser for the purpose of obtaining compliance rather than prevent harm. Put aside that the guy in the video crying “police brutality” comes off as silly (I have images of Al Pacino yelling “Attica” in Dog Day Afternoon), and his wife’s asking if she can just take him home. Apparently, the genesis of this confrontation was a fight between the guy and the pregnant wife, but clearly that horse had left the barn.
Via the Delaware Libertarian, the 2011 National Standards for the use of Tasers (Electronic Control Weapon) provide that it should only be used in response to a threat of harm:
25. ECWs should be used only against subjects who are exhibiting active aggression or who are actively resisting in a manner that, in the officer’s judgment, is likely to result in injuries to themselves or others. ECWs should not be used against a passive subject.While these guidelines were created by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) and are properly described as “best practices,” they don’t displace local police policy toward the use of Tasers. In other words, if the cops want to use a Taser to teach a guy with a big mouth who’s the boss, there may be no policy that prohibits them from doing so.
What this reflects is the need for a rule of law holding that a Taser, like a club or a handgun, is a weapon, which inflicts pain and, on occasion, kills despite its non-lethal description. What it is not is a substitute for patience, a tool to teach people to jump when a cop tells them to or a means by which to subjugate people who annoy police officers or take too long to do as they’re told.
Tasers are weapons of force, and weapons of force are only authorized to meet force, to prevent harm to another. There is no authority to use force because it’s easy and available. Not even if the force is non-lethal (assuming the characterization is fair when it comes to a Taser).
And for those disinclined to feel particularly sympathetic toward the guy who endures multiple tasings because of his yelling “police brutality,” this is also an opportunity to bear in mind that even jerks are entitled not to be needlessly harmed or suffer unjustified pain at the hands of the cops. People are entitled to be jerks. Cops are not.
On the other hand, when P.O. Whitman puts his boot to the guy’s head for kicks, he reminds us that police don’t need an ECW to engage in outrageous and unwarranted violence toward a citizen.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One of the most heartbreaking examples I’ve seen on youtube is the story of Danielle Maudsley who is now brain dead. She was running stoned with her hands cuffed from a fat police officer that tasered her from an arms length away. She fell smacking her head on the concrete, and was turned into a vegetable.
There are thousands of youtube videos with heartbreaking examples, many of which are the subject of other posts here. This post is about one video discussed for a specific reason. If you want to discuss another one that you find particularly significant, start a blog and post away.
There is no one to blame here except the “Gentleman” being arrested. His wife certainly didn’t help the situation and you wonder with all the ailments his wife claims he has how he even functions.
Like all the other videos watched in hindsight, wouldn’t it be wonderful to see the whole incident. I notice the wife didn’t start to video until it showed what she wanted people to see not the whole incident.
And why not just shoot him and put him out of the cops’ misery.
Patience?
Ain’t nobody got time for that!
Patience is a virtue.
— Patience is a virtue
— Cops don’t have patience
— Cops are not virtuous?
This does not seem an appropriate time for a lecture on logical fallacies, so I will resist the temptation.
Poor Mr. Whitman. It certainly does appear as though he was not completely satisfied with the compliance level his electrocution shenanigans were having and right there was Jeremy’s skull fully exposed inches from concrete with his hands restrained. How could he resist the freebie?
Had Mr. Whitman been a bit more proficient with his skull stomping abilities I am sure Jeremy would have been instantly compliment via technical knockout.
Mr. Whitman should really consider going with the full jack-boot worn over his pant legs in the future.
Did you notice he nearly got a few wrinkles in his polyester uniform during the arduous struggle with the suspect?
Another one for the, but for the video file.
I find it bewildering, considering how often the police in this country are summoned to deal with intoxicated individuals, that there are not some carved in stone guidelines for dealing more humanely with intoxicated individuals.
And seeing as our esteemed host has been posting some tunes here and there lately if anyone is needing some international perspective might I suggest you youtube search for Drunk Man Sings Bohemian Rhapsody From The Back Of A Police Car In Canada.
Mr. Whitman and far too many of his associates are really missing out with all this unnecessary insistence with immediate compliance in situations like this post presents. There is some true talent out there.
The police should really learn to just roll with it more often when intoxicated individuals are obviously no immediate physical threat and their numbers and position in the situation allow them overwhelming tactical advantage and means to address the situation if things do escalate.
If Bohemian Rhapsody doesn’t do it for you might I suggest some Dead Kennedy’s.
I would not besmirch Bohemian Rhapsody in that way. Freddy Mercury deserves better.
Given your legendary patience with us non-lawyers, I will dare to ask the undoubtedly-clueless question that occurs to me: how large an effect would a rule of law classifying tasers as weapons actually have in stemming the problem? For example, are clubs used less frequently for pain compliance because of their classification? Given continual technological advances in “non-lethal” devices, such as acoustic devices, doesn’t the classification game just put us in a Red Queen’s Race?
When we look beyond devices that might be classified as weapons, we still have the boot-to-the-head that you mentioned, come-along holds, and a number of other techniques that can’t be so classified. Is there some equivalent legal rule that can deal with these as well as more-creative policing such as the “nickle ride” that raised such a fuss in Philly a few years ago?
Just how far can such rules go in dealing with what is fundamentally a serious cultural problem among law enforcement? The problem has even become so pervasive that it reached into the judiciary once (a judge who ordered the use of a stun belt on a defendant who was persistently interrupting her).
It’s a good question. Bear in mind that there are two levels of inquiry, the legal aspect and the practical aspect. Nothing changes the practical aspect except incentives and culture. As long as cops engage in and tolerate inflicting pain on people for their own convenience or purpose, it will continue.
But on the legal level, at least, if Tasers and whatever next gen weapons come along are classified as force (for which the law is relatively clear) rather than compliance tools, at least we have legal basis from which to argue against and a mechanism for addressing its abuse. It’s not a “solution” in the sense that cops won’t continue to harm people, but it’s a start in the right direction.