"Stop resisting"

[Donegeal]

The initial tazering appears questionable. Someone that old I probably would have used some compression or come-along holds. Especially sine there was more than one officer. All the subsequent shocks were either not needed or were given in such rapid succession that the cops couldn't have come to a reasonable conclusion that the man was not going to cooperate.

[bc1871]

In most states, though it is illegal for the police to arrest a subject for threatening/attempting to commit suicide, they may take in a subject for a psychological evaluation (on a 72hr hold), and unlike many other potential criminal acts, the officers do not need a warrant to enter a residence of an individual who has claimed that they are willing/wish to commit suicide.

The subject in a video claimed that he wished to kill himself, which therefore make the police responsible to investigate the subject’s claim. Now potentially the number of times the subject was tasered might be construed as excessive, though potentially the officers were also following their standard operating procedures as prescribed by their department.

[Boris Godunov]

the officers do not need a warrant to enter a residence of an individual who has claimed that they are willing/wish to commit suicide.

That's not what happened. The officers entered the home before having any contact with the victim--they saw paramedics leaving and just walked right in, uninvited. The man then made the comment in the presence of the officers. While not a smart thing to do, it certainly is a common enough phrase that it would have been entirely reasonable for them to accept that it was not a serious threat. Even so, tasering a 64-year-old man with a heart condition (his wife told the cops about it before they zapped him) is pure lunacy. What if he had died? That would have made it the quintessential "we had to destroy the village to save it" moment, now wouldn't it?

What kind of authoritarian nightmare state would people who would deem the cops' actions here acceptable want to have? Entering a home uninvited without a warrant or probable cause, then threatening, tasering and arresting the home owner who had not committed any sort of crime whatsoever? I'd think this would be the epitome of a "government intruding in our personal lives" situation.

****, the Sheriff is claiming the man "charged" the deputy as justification for the tasing. That clearly is NOT true if you watch the video. So the fact that the Sheriff is lying to try and excuse this indicates to me that he knows the deputies crossed the line.

[Al B. Sure!]

The dude probably shouldn't have cursed out the cops either.

[bc1871]

First off, it should be pointed out that the subject was already confrontational with the officers (as demonstrated by an obscene gesture made by the subject). Now any reasonable person is going to maintain their composure/bearing when speaking with another human being (regardless of their status in society), but it seems that from the start the subject instead decided to act in a confrontational manner. Now the officer on scene noticed that the subject was acting in a manner which may prove to be an officer safety issue, and acting in accordance with common sense, deployed a less than lethal weapon to defend himself.

Secondly, and though not officially stated in the article, it’s safe to assume that the paramedics called the police, following the subject’s commentary about wanting to kill himself. Now, though the subject claims that his comments were purely hyperbole, it should be noted that any and all threats of suicide are taken seriously, and treated as though the subject has intent to commit such actions.

Finally, in defense of the officer, had I been in his position I would have also used non-lethal force against the subject. The subject was obviously intoxicated, and his actions were becoming increasingly hostile. The officer, requested that the subject remain where he was, which he obviously refused. The officer, potentially fearing for his own life, and using the appropriate amount of force, preceded to taser the subject. Now had the officer used deadly force, then obviously he would have been wrong, and should face punishment accordingly, but since the officer used non-lethal force to resolve the situation, he should be credited for resolving the situation by using the most reasonable approach possible.

[GePap]

First off, it should be pointed out that the subject was already confrontational with the officers (as demonstrated by an obscene gesture made by the subject). Now any reasonable person is going to maintain their composure/bearing when speaking with another human being (regardless of their status in society), but it seems that from the start the subject instead decided to act in a confrontational manner. Now the officer on scene noticed that the subject was acting in a manner which may prove to be an officer safety issue, and acting in accordance with common sense, deployed a less than lethal weapon to defend himself.

Sorry, but only you think it is common sense to shoot someone with an electric current (no matter how non-lethal) because they hare using obscene gestures and nasty words. An officer is a public servant - with a duty to citizens, not just themselves.

Secondly, and though not officially stated in the article, it’s safe to assume that the paramedics called the police, following the subject’s commentary about wanting to kill himself. Now, though the subject claims that his comments were purely hyperbole, it should be noted that any and all threats of suicide are taken seriously, and treated as though the subject has intent to commit such actions.

Maybe the officers could try to talk the man out of trying to commit suicide, or hold off from tazering him until perhaps the man took any action that could be threatening to himself or anyone else.

Finally, in defense of the officer, had I been in his position I would have also used non-lethal force against the subject. The subject was obviously intoxicated, and his actions were becoming increasingly hostile. The officer, requested that the subject remain where he was, which he obviously refused. The officer, potentially fearing for his own life, and using the appropriate amount of force, preceded to taser the subject. Now had the officer used deadly force, then obviously he would have been wrong, and should face punishment accordingly, but since the officer used non-lethal force to resolve the situation, he should be credited for resolving the situation by using the most reasonable approach possible.

There are many levels of non-lethal violence that are far lower than tazering someone.

You clearly are nothing but a total apologist for the officers. If you had been one of the hundreds of cops I interviewed when investigating complaints against the police in NYC, I would have found you guilty of excessive force in a second if you were either of these officers - of course, NYC does have a massive Patrol Guide, which has clear rules on using force. I doubt this police department has rules as developed. Hopefully this lawsuit wins, and that will force this department to create better rules regarding the use of Tazers.

[Boris Godunov]

My understanding was that the comment made about him shooting himself wasn't made to the paramedics, but rather as an aside to the cops after they'd come in (uninvited) and were questioning him.

At any rate, even tasering experts are saying they were out of line:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/north_bay&id=7645194

SAN RAFAEL, CA (KGO) -- The story of a Marin County man being Tased in his own home is still raising eyebrows across the country. Experts on the use of Tasers are among the many who question whether the deputies' use of force was appropriate.


One of the two experts has served in San Francisco, Berkeley and San Jose on various commissions which monitor police activities. The other expert has been training police officers for more than four decades. Both came to similar conclusions.

"He's trying to get his hands behind his back," Don Cameron said.

Cameron is a former police officer who trains law enforcement on the use of weapons and the proper use of force when making arrests. He reviewed the video of 64-year-old Peter McFarland being Tased in his own home by a Marin County Sheriff's deputy in June 2009.


McFarland had just been treated by paramedics for injuries suffered when he fell down the steps outside his house when two sheriff's deputies arrived.
Video from a camera mounted on one of the deputy's Taser shows a laser beam is targeted on McFarland's chest.

The deputy says he is going to take McFarland to the hospital because he may be suicidal.

"We want to take you to the hospital for an evaluation, you said if you had a gun, you'd shoot yourself in the head," the deputy said.
McFarland says it was just a crack he made because of the pain of his injuries.

The deputy orders McFarland numerous times to get up, warning him he will be Tased if he does not comply. McFarland refuses while his wife tells the deputies he has a heart condition.

When McFarland finally gets up, he is Tased, not once, but three times before he is handcuffed.

Cameron says McFarland was only a passive resistor. In other words, he was refusing orders but not aggressively. He says the deputy should have talked to him and used hand holds to restrain him before pulling out his Taser.

"The officers should have tried hand technique and if those were unsuccessful, the person tried to pull away, then yes, use the intermediate weapon, use the Taser," Cameron said. "But why go to the Taser right away?"

Barbara Attard agrees. She is past president of the National Association of Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.

She did not see any reason to use a Taser.

"Unless Tasers are used carefully and within guidelines and with strict policies in training, you know, departments, it's going to cost them a lot of money or they're going to have the ability to use Tasers taken away from them," Attard said.

McFarland sued Marin County on Monday. The Sheriff's Department sent a written response, saying in part "it takes charges of excessive force seriously," but they are confident the deputies will be vindicated when all the facts are in.

ABC7 has asked if an investigation into the incident has been opened but has not yet received a reply.

No attempt was made by the officers to physically subdue the man prior to tasing him.

And tasers have been lethal on several occasions. They can and do kill people.

[Al B. Sure!]

What happened to cops just grabbing a guy? I mean two cops couldn't restrain that old man?