Originally posted by Vector
TT/A you did put up a poll so you did ask for opinion. Therefore to introduce the title of "arm chair" seems a little unfair.
I put up the poll to ask for opinion and my original post shows that. It was quite neutral.
If someone wants to armchair this one and say the use of the taser for such a minor offense was too much then let's hear the alternative?
What I meant by this is that if someone wants to "armchair" (criticize) their actions then in the interest of fairness should offer up an alternative.
The urgency and importancy of following lawful orders is done for several reasons.
1. The fact it was a minor traffic misdemeanor is meaningless. Police officers don't arrest criminals on THEIR conditions, they're done on the officer's conditions for many reasons. Safety being first and foremost.
2. The one being arrested isn't in charge. The officer is and that's the rule of law.
3. The order and urgency to hang up the phone is vitally important. She had an attitude and didn't like the police from the get-go. We don't know who she's speaking to and we don't know what her intent was by calling somone. My understanding is that's not a pleasant area of Florida and again, officer safety is paramount. The last thing this officer needs is an angry Mark (brother/husband) showing up at this traffic stop. That's all Officer McNevin needs is to deal with TWO assholes. She was clearly giving her location where she was stopped. You could almost say it sounded like she was phoning someone for assistance = NOT GOOD.
When you have someone defiant and confrontational from the beginning you don't need them dictating to you how you'll do your job.
My philosophy along with many other officers is to first ask, then tell, then make someone follow your lawful order. It was done perfectly in this instance.
As far as the 2nd application of the taser goes you'll see she refused to comply with orders to stay on the ground and place her hands behind her back. I found out that she actually pulled one of the taser's probes out of her making the taser non-effective and tried to get up. Officer McNevin applied a 2nd shock called a "drive stun" where you put the taser directly on the subject. You can clearly see this on the video. After the 2nd application she complied and stayed on the ground and didn't resist any further. This video is what we'd call TEXT BOOK.
Whether she assaulted an officer isn't clear on the video. My understanding is that the 2nd officer who went to the passenger side of the car attempted to take the cell phone from her (after being warned 4x to put it down and step out) and she either pulled away and/or pulled away and swatted at the officer.
It's my opinion the taser was the perfect tool for dealing with this subject. She had already pulled away from the 2nd officer when he tried to take the phone away. Had that taser not been available they would've had to physically pull her from the car (hands on), forcibly taken down to the ground and her arms forced behind her back and cuffed. I feel given her attitude she was pushing for that very scenario to happen. It didn't. She was given 2 - 5 second electric shocks that have no lasting affects. As soon as the current is discontinued the discomfort ends immediately.
Force was inevitable here whether it was pepper spray, hands on, strikes or whatever. She wasn't simply going to step from the car without a fight, she set the tone.
I guarantee you we're not taught the Jedi mind trick to make people do things they don't want to do so we don't have to touch'em.