Cop tasers 10yo girl for refusing to go to bed

[Spectre]

It isn't my story, but at the link you can see the officer's report and he says they moved the girl from room to room - first to the bathroom to try to get her in the shower and then when she didn't cooperate to the living room where he tried to put handcuffs on her.

After she was tasered she couldn't move at all and he carried her to the car.

I know there are restrictions on what cops can and cannot do, but I've also seen fully grown men taken down and cuffed by an officer, legally.

I know you're defending the individual officer's actions and I can understand where you're coming from.

Yup, but officers often have problems doing that alone, even when the grown man isn't in the grip of some psych problem. And again, moving someone isn't the same as restraining them.

Whats so hard about locking her in the room, and taking her ipod (assuming she has one away) and switching off the breaker. Sit in the dark long enough screaming and flipping out and when it doesn't get her any where she'll come down off the adrenaline high, or crash.

Jesus Christ people there is an alternative option to just kicking the kids ass or using a damn tazer. Though these options are far more entertaining

While common sense may suggest that, I'm sure any officer locking up kids in their room on duty will be in a heap of trouble.

Exactly, he would be allowing her to potentially harm herself. Big no-no, also big cause for civil lawsuit running into the millions.

This problem should have been solved by the mother years before the police were called in. I don't see where the police officer did anything wrong, honestly. Not in our society with the regulations and restrictions placed upon him. I think he made the best choice out of a menu of bad ones - which were the only ones available.

 

[hansvonaxion]

I think thedguy meant the mother should have locked her up, not the officer.

Like I said, Spectre, I can see where you're coming from, but it was a small, unarmed 10 year old girl, there were 2 adults present and tasers are potentially lethal. She was not behaving in a criminal manner/breaking the law, she was refusing to take a shower.

If the officer did nothing wrong then there is something seriously wrong with police training and/or procedure.

 

[Spectre]

I think thedguy meant the mother should have locked her up, not the officer.

Like I said, Spectre, I can see where you're coming from, but it was a small, unarmed 10 year old girl, there were 2 adults present and tasers are potentially lethal. She was not behaving in a criminal manner/breaking the law, she was refusing to take a shower.

If the officer did nothing wrong then there is something seriously wrong with police training and/or procedure.

Actually, she broke the law when she hit the officer and refused to comply with his commands. Assaulting an officer is a crime as is resisting arrest, even for a juvenile. At the point at which she was tased, she was guilty of two crimes.

If she'd simply sat there and refused to be moved instead of striking out at others, you'd have a point. But she didn't.

And yes - there is something seriously wrong with police procedure and training in this country - it's called they're handcuffed by decades of stupid regulations and laws and have a limited menu of courses of action these days. Welcome to the 'zero tolerance' world.

 

[narf]

She was not behaving in a criminal manner/breaking the law

She kicked him in the gentleman's region... pretty lawbreaking/criminal in most societies. Assaulted an officer as well, resisted arrest too. The zap came afterwards.


...I'm getting old and slow...

 

[Dogbert]

She was not behaving in a criminal manner/breaking the law, she was refusing to take a shower.

This is what startled me about the article, too. What sort of parent has to call the cops on a kid for not taking a shower? How do you make that jump? "Take a shower or I'm calling the police!"

The police report doesn't specify any physical violence before the officer got there, and it even says that the kid was on the floor crying upon arrival. One has to wonder if the mother was just so full of fail that she agitated the kid into hysteria, called the police to resolve it, and the kid was so red-misted by then that she thought beating up cops was a good idea.

I'll defend tazing at the point it was used at, too, rather than physical restraint. If the kid was hulking out as much as the police report says, I'm sure one good thrash (especially cuffed) could have easily dislocated a limb or otherwise injured her. As it stands now, she has two little burns on her back, if that.

 

[brydie76]

Whats so hard about locking her in the room, and taking her ipod (assuming she has one away) and switching off the breaker. Sit in the dark long enough screaming and flipping out and when it doesn't get her any where she'll come down off the adrenaline high, or crash.

Jesus Christ people there is an alternative option to just kicking the kids ass or using a damn tazer. Though these options are far more entertaining

That's what I didn't get, the article said that she only became violent towards others when approached. Turn the lights off, lock her in the room. My parents did that to me when I went bonkers and it worked a charm. And I was 30 kg like this girl and beyond furious (yes, kicking, screaming, biting, the whole show) and both my parents could handle me and carry me to my room no problem. And yes, I was really in psychotic rages during these moments due to some pretty bad mental issues from bullying and such (some of which still cause me issues today), which I really don't want to go into. But basically I would freak out and refuse to go to school/outside or anything and go into a rage, like this kid did. It was over 2 months, and my parents basically shut me in my room for an hour and then took me wherever I was meant to be going late. The lack of attention to my rages and the humiliation of turning up everywhere late sorted me out pretty quickly.

 

[hansvonaxion]

Actually, she broke the law when she hit the officer and refused to comply with his commands. Assaulting an officer is a crime as is resisting arrest, even for a juvenile. At the point at which she was tased, she was guilty of two crimes.

The police report doesn't specify any physical violence before the officer got there, and it even says that the kid was on the floor crying upon arrival.

This was what I meant. There was (most likely) no need to place the child under arrest in the first place. The crime she committed was a reaction to being placed under arrest basically. She refused to comply with the officers command that she take a shower before bed. :lol:

No matter what restrictions are placed on police, they can still use discretion.

but officers often have problems doing that alone, even when the grown man isn't in the grip of some psych problem. And again, moving someone isn't the same as restraining them.

But she wasn't a grown man. And I'd say moving her would be harder than restraining her long enough to cuff her.

 

[Spectre]

This was what I meant. There was (most likely) no need to place the child under arrest in the first place. The crime she committed was a reaction to being placed under arrest basically. She refused to comply with the officers command that she take a shower before bed. :lol:

No matter what restrictions are placed on police, they can still use discretion.

Actually, in our zero-tolerance society over here, they mostly can't, not any more. Thank you, infinite lawsuits.

But she wasn't a grown man. And I'd say moving her would be harder than restraining her long enough to cuff her.

No, moving someone is much easier than trying to restrain someone trying to avoid being cuffed.

 

[brydie76]

This was what I meant. There was (most likely) no need to place the child under arrest in the first place. The crime she committed was a reaction to being placed under arrest basically. She refused to comply with the officers command that she take a shower before bed. :lol:

No matter what restrictions are placed on police, they can still use discretion.



But she wasn't a grown man. And I'd say moving her would be harder than restraining her long enough to cuff her.

This. Place yourself in the scenario of the child- a tall, big stranger with guns and weapons around his waist comes into your safe place (home) and tries to order you around, shouts at you, tries to grab you. Instict tells you (especially at that age) to fight and get away. The child was probably scared shitless, poor girl.

And yes, I am defending the child here- she may be a spoiled brat or whatever, but her mother did not set limits, attempt to rectify the issue or anything- she just called the cops. I would guess that she is one of those parents who thinks that either saying no:
- is too hard
- stifles their child's "spirit"
Yes, I blame the parent. I know so many people like this girl, with parents who spoil them and say no. They are the type who are now mentally unstable and will have a hard time coping in the "real world" outside of school, because they are not used to being considered average and cannot take rejection. Many of them did not sit their HSC/any other exams for this reason- they just submitted appeals to get estimates/get their marks bumped up due to "stress". I'm glad my parents punished me, said no to my demands, etc. I am much more stable and able to cope with work and real life situations because of it.

 

[Spectre]

Um, by the age of ten, most kids are well able to understand the concept of "policeman"... and that they have to obey them.

 

[brydie76]

^ the moment I posted that, I knew somebody would bring it up :lol:

Like you said though, the child probably wasn't thinking rationally. Yes, when you are rational and calm, you would think "ok, here is a policeman, I need to obey what they say". Somebody going nuts beyond belief is not going to be able to make that connection- if anything, it normally provokes them even more (many adults in rages tend to lash out even further when the authorities arrive to restrain them). The child most likely only saw another person trying to restrain/hurt them and freaked out even more.

 

[Spectre]

So, either the kid is able to recognize the policeman and should have stood down, or the kid was too far gone and the officer was perfectly justified in restraining the kid in a method prescribed by his department policy and law. In which case, there's nothing to complain about.

Which is it?

 

[brydie76]

^ The latter, but my point isn't that the cop was out of line according to policy- it is that I believe that there should have been no need for this situation (preventative action should have been taken) and that I think there were alternatives to what the policeman did that he could have explored (although maybe he did, I do not know- my argument is based on the fact he did not).

The context of my opinion is based around the history of tazers in Australia- it isn't very good. We have only really had them for approx 2 years and not all officers have them because they are that controversial. There have been deaths from tazerings, people who have bsically shaken off the effects after a few seconds and basically come after the cops ten times angrier, etc- you get the idea. Tazers are really not popular over here and cops hesitate to use them on fully grown men on murderous rampages due to this controversy- a young child throwing a tantrum (albeit an incredibly bad one) would cause national outrage. As I think I stated before (man, that's bad that I've forgotten already!), i am not anti-tazer when they are used approporiately. However, for the large part they are not in Australia, and thus I do not support their use currently. It's also based on my previous experiences that I stated above- I mean, my parents coped with me in a similar situation without tazering, I don't see why others couldn't.

But yeah, kid got tazered, obviously something wrong at home, hope it all gets sorted out for her. I hope her mother gets some parenting help.

 

[NooDle]

Okay, and what is the officer supposed to do while the psychotic not-so-little girl tries to kill him? Sit there and take it?

I can sorta understand the cop's point of view, he had no other choice really. Thing is, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. The mother should just have handled her shit. I can understand if you call the cops when your 17yo son threatens to beat you up, but a 10 yo girl refusing to go to bed,??

 

[hansvonaxion]

So, either the kid is able to recognize the policeman and should have stood down, or the kid was too far gone and the officer was perfectly justified in restraining the kid in a method prescribed by his department policy and law. In which case, there's nothing to complain about.

Which is it?

Like I said, if a police officer can't restrain a 10yo girl then he has no place on the force.

And considering you basically have to restrain someone to move them, my point stands.

This case was brought to the attention of the media by the father. If it were my daughter and I found out that the mother called the cops on my kid (not the first time) for not taking a shower, told the officer to use his taser and he did I would be f'n livid.

And if I were another cop back at the station when the guy returned...

So what was that all about?

Oh some girl wouldn't get in the shower before bed.

Oh, so what'd you do?

Tasered her.

Fair enough. You had no choice.

:?

 

[Spectre]

Like I said, if a police officer can't restrain a 10yo girl then he has no place on the force.

And considering you basically have to restrain someone to move them, my point stands.

It's not that he physically can't, but that he's not allowed to by rules, regs and laws. That would apply to even Ahhhnuld, were he a cop.

And NO, you do NOT have to restrain someone to move them, not to the same degree as needed to cuff them. This is easily proved in any gym, so your point does not stand.

This case was brought to the attention of the media by the father. If it were my daughter and I found out that the mother called the cops on my kid (not the first time) for not taking a shower, told the officer to use his taser and he did I would be f'n livid.

The kid wasn't tasered for not taking a shower. The kid was tasered for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

I can sorta understand the cop's point of view, he had no other choice really. Thing is, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. The mother should just have handled her shit. I can understand if you call the cops when your 17yo son threatens to beat you up, but a 10 yo girl refusing to go to bed,??

I agree, the real failure was mom and dad. This should have been handled years before it ever got to this point. But it wasn't and mom called the cops to clean up after her failures, and the end result was pretty much foreordained at that point. If not then and there, then later, perhaps in a significantly more lethal way.

It should be mentioned that the history of Tasers and taser-type weapons hasn't exactly been all that good in this country either. There is a great deal of potential for abuse and misuse as you might expect, and if evaluated fairly, the Taser is not as safe as the manufacturer claims. However, there is less potential for undetectable abuse than with a baton and it is less likely to cause permanent damage as well.

Note that most weapons authorities class Tasers as "less-lethal" weapons. Not "non-lethal." "Less-lethal." You can actually intentionally kill a perfectly healthy human being that has no congenital defects with a Taser (no, I'm not going to tell you all how to do it), but it's not that easy and there's lots of evidence afterwards. It's something that absolutely should not be issued or used with any less training or policy than a firearm. I will also agree that the Taser is also used quite a lot more than it should be and for things it shouldn't be used for, such as 'compliance' instead of 'apprehension'.

On the plus side, a Taser is the most effective 'stun' type weapon that humanity has come up with so far; a Taser can bring down a person through neuro-electric lockup faster than even a bullet, and the effects are usually temporary. I wish we had a surer and more effective stun weapon that was safer to use for all concerned, but the ion-arc-path weapons don't seem to have worked out, trank guns killed more people than Tasers do plus are much less effective and beanbag rounds/stun batons from shotguns are marginal at best.

Best of a bad lot of choices, once again.

 

[IceBone]

When I did that, I got slapped silly. Good thing educating your children physically isn't illegal here.

 

[Dogbert]

beanbag rounds/stun batons from shotguns are marginal at best.

Firing a stun baton from a shotgun sounds pretty barbaric to me. Shooting tasers from shotguns sounds much more effective.

I've read in several journals that firing K-9's from shotguns hasn't proven very effective, too.

 

[Spectre]

When I did that, I got slapped silly. Good thing educating your children physically isn't illegal here.

Unfortunately, it is illegal in many states. Plus there are several Congressidiots talking about making it a federal law.

Firing a stun baton from a shotgun sounds pretty barbaric to me. Shooting tasers from shotguns sounds much more effective.

I've read in several journals that firing K-9's from shotguns hasn't proven very effective, too.

Um, a "stun baton" is simply a rubber rod about two inches long that is fired out of a reduced-power shotgun shell. The idea is that the rubber rod will transmit stunning but not lethal levels of force to the target. It's not a bad idea, but it has never worked out as promised.

Likewise the "Taser round" for shotguns. That's new, but I'm not really seeing that as working out, too much chance for some idiot to load the wrong round and accidentally kill someone. More likely, it's just another way to sell Taser tech to departments that don't want to buy dedicated Taser guns.

I haven't been able to fire a dog out of a shotgun yet, but that's because I need to buy a bigger shotgun.

 

[hansvonaxion]

It's not that he physically can't, but that he's not allowed to by rules, regs and laws. That would apply to even Ahhhnuld, were he a cop.

And NO, you do NOT have to restrain someone to move them, not to the same degree as needed to cuff them. This is easily proved in any gym, so your point does not stand.

The kid wasn't tasered for not taking a shower. The kid was tasered for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

Note that most weapons authorities class Tasers as "less-lethal" weapons. Not "non-lethal."

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Because again, I've seen a number of videos of police officers restraining and cuffing people without the use of tasers. Police can tackle people, they can put their weight on them, put their knee in their back, bend their arm behind their back in order to put the cuff in place etc.

As for the moving part, he moved her from the bathroom to the living room. He could have moved her from the living room to the car.

Assaulting an officer. Resisting arrest.

Do the police have the power to force people to take a shower before bedtime in their own home? I mean, c'mon. The only reason she "assaulted" him is because he was trying to force her to take a shower. Step back for a second and tell me you don't find it just a little bit silly.

And yes, tasers can be lethal. God forbid he may hurt her wrestling her to the ground, better off whipping out the high-voltage, potentially lethal taser.