July 23, 2014 at 2:10 p.m.
Resident wants Taser policy review (12/12/05)
Letter to the editor
`To the editor:
An article in this paper on Monday, Dec. 7 on page 5 deserves a little more attention than was probably attributed to it. A 40-year-old woman was stopped for suspicion of drunken driving. After complying to various sobriety tests that proved inconclusive, she is told that she will have to submit to a blood test or be incarcerated.
The account is somewhat contradictory in that they state she refused to drop her cell phone after being warned of incarceration for failure to submit to a blood test. The other account is she says she needs to make a phone call and reaches into her car. She is told to stop and when she doesn’t one deputy grabs her and forces her over the car’s trunk. The other deputy then places the Taser against her arm and shocks her.
One can understand physically restraining her from attempting to extract an unknown object from her vehicle. The question is, after restraining her, was use of the Taser necessary? I think not since it states she was 5-5 and weighed 110 pounds.
The Hamilton County Sheriff states that the officers followed department policy. Let’s decipher this for this sheriff. They are probably using the new generation Tasers and according to literature these are designed to “... to incapacitate combative or high risk subjects that may be impervious to other less-lethal means, regardless of pain tolerance, drug use or body size” — and, as “specifically designed to stop even elite, aggressive, focused combatants.”
I suspect that Hamilton County has a loosely-stated policy similar to other police departments that state Tasers may be used to “overcome resistance to arrest” or “at any point force is requred.” This could be in the form of “bracing or tension against restraint” or “attempts to push or pull away.” Some departments also authorize use of Tasers at the level of “active physical resistance.”
We all want our law enforcement officers — city, county or state — to be safe in their daily task of law enforcement. We also expect prudent judgment to be used by these officers in all situations requiring interaction with citizens.
I, for one, feel that the Portland Police Department and the Jay County Sheriff’s Department should review their policies on Taser use to ensure we do not experience an incident in Portland or Jay County similar to what took place in Hamilton County.
Jim Coleman
Portland[[In-content Ad]]
An article in this paper on Monday, Dec. 7 on page 5 deserves a little more attention than was probably attributed to it. A 40-year-old woman was stopped for suspicion of drunken driving. After complying to various sobriety tests that proved inconclusive, she is told that she will have to submit to a blood test or be incarcerated.
The account is somewhat contradictory in that they state she refused to drop her cell phone after being warned of incarceration for failure to submit to a blood test. The other account is she says she needs to make a phone call and reaches into her car. She is told to stop and when she doesn’t one deputy grabs her and forces her over the car’s trunk. The other deputy then places the Taser against her arm and shocks her.
One can understand physically restraining her from attempting to extract an unknown object from her vehicle. The question is, after restraining her, was use of the Taser necessary? I think not since it states she was 5-5 and weighed 110 pounds.
The Hamilton County Sheriff states that the officers followed department policy. Let’s decipher this for this sheriff. They are probably using the new generation Tasers and according to literature these are designed to “... to incapacitate combative or high risk subjects that may be impervious to other less-lethal means, regardless of pain tolerance, drug use or body size” — and, as “specifically designed to stop even elite, aggressive, focused combatants.”
I suspect that Hamilton County has a loosely-stated policy similar to other police departments that state Tasers may be used to “overcome resistance to arrest” or “at any point force is requred.” This could be in the form of “bracing or tension against restraint” or “attempts to push or pull away.” Some departments also authorize use of Tasers at the level of “active physical resistance.”
We all want our law enforcement officers — city, county or state — to be safe in their daily task of law enforcement. We also expect prudent judgment to be used by these officers in all situations requiring interaction with citizens.
I, for one, feel that the Portland Police Department and the Jay County Sheriff’s Department should review their policies on Taser use to ensure we do not experience an incident in Portland or Jay County similar to what took place in Hamilton County.
Jim Coleman
Portland[[In-content Ad]]
Top Stories
9/11 NEVER FORGET Mobile Exhibit
Chartwells marketing
September 17, 2024 7:36 a.m.
Events
250 X 250 AD