jmac3 wrote: What is sensationalized about the headline?

Mayor Vernon McDaniel said officer Dustin Bradshaw was suspended Wednesday for seven days with pay for not following department procedures, because he didn't have the camera on.

 

Break her arm?  Ya, my poo-chute.  He couldn't just pick her up in 1 quick swoop and put her in the back of the car?  She's 10, so weighs, what, like 40 pounds?

 

The mother is the one that needs to be tazed for calling the police in the first place... 

I have no idea if the cop was justified in his use of force or not, nor am I suggesting he is or isnt.  I'm not a police officer, I don't need to detain anyone from ice heads to 10 year old girls.  I assume that the people who are trained in how to react to these sorts of situations have a better handle on what was done and why then I do.

That article, however, seems to be trying to take a police officer's suspension due to not following protocol in using a camera into a crusade against tasers. That's sensationalism.

And if I had wheels I'd be a wagon

 

or in the Article wrote: Bradshaw's report says the girl was "violently kicking and verbally combative" when Bradshaw tried to take her into custody, and she kicked him in the groin. He said he delivered "a very brief drive stun to her back."

 

He was physically assulted in what could be a debilitating manner, with or without the mother's concent

and reguarless of her age, he was justified to increase force.

 

 

would she know when to stop?

It was an entirely unrelated, and rather absurd response bearing little value to the topic at hand.

Kind of like your response :) 

First you need to consider how much force a 10 year old girl can project on another person. While a swift kick to the groin can be painful even if it just nicks the man, it does not mean that this particular 10 year old girl could inflict any further damage past that. If the Officer is up to snuff on his training then his reaction time should be quick enough to avoid any damaging blows. 

Linus, understanding your career I can see why you feel there was nothing wrong with what happened. However think about this outside of the realm of your job to understand that a 10 year old girl on AVERAGE will end up hurting themselves just slightly enough to put themselves out of commission. Or like other people have said she will tire herself out. 

every time the kid doesn't make her bed now.

 

This.

 

Sorry guys, you can't electrify a 10 year old unless her or someone else's life is in danger.

 

The cop should face suspension (not termination-the mom did agree after all) for using bad discretion, and the mom should be thoroughly investigated for child abuse by CPS.

 

Also, I really don't get the title of this thread. Supporters of "indiscriminate" use of tasers? Those people exist?

 

The thing here is that yeah, police have policy that protects them, but part of being a cop is making good discretion. And to take that further, good discretion involves protecting the reputation of the badge you represent.

 

Just for instance, at one point when tasers first came out, dropping the f bomb near a cop was considered hostile behavior, and they could taser you for it. I'd say a large portion of us have dropped the f bomb in public, and while tacky, it is most certainly not an offense worthy of physical action.

 

They've changed that here in Texas, but it just shows police have alot of laws that give them flexibility ina bad situation.

 

I think he should be reprimanded for endangering the reputation of the department, bad conduct. From what I've seen, and the department seems to be pretty open about this case, the officer had no place using non lethal force.

 

And as for lethal force, that's not entirely true either. Lots of cops have been prosecuted for using lethal force in a situation where we might think it necessary, but often times even in life threatening situations a cop can, with good discretion, use non lethal force to save a life.

 

Which all comes down to what a cop is there for-to serve and protect. Not whoop ass and take names, or wipe the scum off the streets. And, in my opinion, use even non lethal force on 10 year old girls.

 

I usually side with the cops, my father was a policeman, and I several family members that were in law enforcement, and an uncle who was a police chief-but I was also raised around good cops who made good decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

Gotta disagree with you again man. Cops are servants of the public, if the public thinks something is morally reprehensible, it should reconsidered.

 

And I go back to my f bomb example. Laws are there to protect police in examples of extreme circumstanes. 10 year old with a gun, psycho 10 year old with scissors or a knife, yeah. Mom pissed because the kid is kicking and throwing fits-really?

 

And the mom saying it's okay has no bearing to me here-obviously mom screwed up somewhere, and according to what I'm seeing from dad, won't be winning any parenting of the year awards. Mom might say go ahead and beat the crap out of my drunk 17 year old, that'll learn'im. There's a reason you're wearing the badge and she's got an out of control child with serious issues.

 

Sometimes you need to step back and ignore the "rules", and look at the situation. We're talking a 10 year old throwing a temper tantrum, happens quite often. The mom should've never used police time, and the cop should have taken more time to rethink his surroundings.

 

And I'll say this-if it comes out tomorrow that the kid was armed, or was endangering the lives of the mom or cop, or you show me bruises or cuts on the mom / officer, I'll rethink this position. But I've practically helped raised three children that were the very definition of spoiled when they were younger. One of them is 13 now and still gets physically confrontational-and guess what? I can control them, and so can my 5'4" 115 pound sister.

 

I just wonder how many cops in the past were kicked in the shin by a pissed off child...it doesnt' change the fact it's a child. Tasers aren't lethal, in all cases, but they are a liability to the department, and this makes for some really bad pr.

 

As far as damage to the kid goes, it wouldn't physically harm a child to put a gun to her head and yell at her either, but it doesn't mean you should do it, or that it wouldn't leave some form of emotional damage.

 

If this were even a 13 or 14 year old, I'd say hell yeah, fry some skin. But this is a 10 year old girl-she's practically a baby. And she had underlying issues-there are other paths an officer has to detain a child than using a weapon.

 

And just to be a smartass-spitting or vomiting on an officer counts as assault with a bodily fluid, but you don't see any babies being detained

 

 

That's right, but not newborn babies lol...that's my point though, while yeah, the rule says the officer has the right to act a certain way, exceptions can and absolutely should be made for children and babies.

 

The mother consented?  Irrelevant - as to the cop, anyway.  That qualifies her for a visit to social services, but how does this in any way excuse the cop's behavior?  If the mother had told the cop to smack the kid, would he have done that as well?  It is the cop's job to exercise professional judgement, not contribute to child abuse.

 

The child was kicking and screaming, and she might cause injury to the cop?  As has been pointed out:  SHE IS  A 10-YEAR OLD GIRL.  If you cannot subdue a child without resorting to weapons, you have no business being a cop.

 

The cop might injure the child while subduing her?  See above. 

 

Based on available information, this guy needs to be removed from the force for either lacking professional judgement or just being a sociopath, and then thrown in jail for aggravated battery of a minor with aggravating factors.

 

This whole story disgusts me.

 

Facts might come along that would soften my view, but I am having a very difficult time imagining what they might be.

 

 

I took the liberty of adding quotations

 

I'm assuming you're an officer-? So just because an officer has an ability to do something he therefore has to follow that rule, and that without personal consequence?

 

I think you've topped my stupid statement my friend. This officer would have faced no consequences for not tasering this 10 year old girl.

 

Being an officer, again, I'm sure you familiar with all the various "protection" laws that officers have. The law, and rightfully so, allows for special situations that an officer might be presented with. That doesn't mean that it's appropriate to take advantage of those laws at every occasion you get the chance.

 

By your reasoning, everytime an officers didn't use lethal force on someone who pulled a gun or a weapon on them, they're at fault for not following "rules" provided. My dad always used to tell me, if he wants to an officer can and will screw you. There's a law for everything.

 

If cops followed every loophole and exception they have, there would be mass abuse of the system. Part of being an observant citizen is recognizing when a line has been stepped over and calling that officer out. There's a very thin line (no pun intended) between protection and oppresion, after all.

 

And you're talking to the most steady defender of cops' rights on this forum. I almost without fail always back the cop, see the previous taser argument. But in this case I can't see, from the information I've been given, that the type of force used was justified by the threat.

 

If you agree with everyone that are up in arms, I'm not sure I understand the argument.

 

My exact statement was that while I didn't feel the cop should be terminated, I felt he should be suspended for bad judgement. And in essence, he was.

 

My argument was neither for or against the cop, is it was A:) his judgement in this situation, and B:) vehemently defending his use of the taser.

 

If you felt the cop acted wrongly in what he did, then we have no disagreement. Looking back throughout the thread, I'm only seeing one or two of the "anti-pig" comments you speak of, for the most part it's just been people such as myself who really don't see how you can justify using a taser on a 10 year old girl.

 

So I think your outrage at this thread is a little misplaced...I'd say for the most part the reactions have been fairly conservative, calling out only the apparent bad discretion on the part of an officer.

 

And I disagree that the protocol is theissue here-the policy has to be in place to allow for exreme situations. The department is responsible for making sure that its officers don't abuse those policies, and in my humble opinion, based of course on the facts provided in this story, there's a possibility that this officer should face at least a slap on the wrist for a DOH! moment.

 

I can understand that. There's definately alot of anti-authority angst here at Tippy, but given the age group, I guess it's to be expected.

 

Kayback wrote: The cops judgement was to follow procedure. You can't nail a guy's ass for this when the nett result is no injuries and everyone lived. That wasn't bad judgement, that was bad procedure. Procedures are there to cover extremes, and obviously he thought this was warranted.

 

I'm going to agree to disagree on this one  I see where you're coming from here, I just think the age of the child, in any situation, warrants a completely different approach, whether the procedure exists or not. But I again, I understand your reasoning, and I don't think we're going to come to any agreement so I'll drop it.

Kayback wrote: I don't think the cop acted wrongly, he acted withing the law and within operational guidelines. I think the guidelines are broken and need fixing. The cop shouldn't get a slap on the wrist for a Doh moment. He solved the situation with no harm to anyone.

 

Except the image of the department, and his own record. I think part of my school of thought here comes from the invisible responsibility of a public servant that wears a badge-keeping up the reputation and integrity of your profession.

 

Kayback wrote:   The DAUGHTER should get a slap on her bum. A literal one, not a figurative one. The cop should have never been in that situation to begin with.

 

Here's where I agree. Unfortunately for that cop, this was a lose / lose sitaution. While I disagree with the use of the taser, a male officer that tackles or comes in physical contact with a female child, risks accusations of brutality, sexual assault, and god knows what else from when mom changes her mind. But that's the unfortunate reality of being an officer, sometimes it's a choice of evils. And I just can't imagine that there wasn't a lesser evil here. 

 

Kayback wrote: I agree the 10 year old shouldn't have been Tazered, but not because the guy did it, because POLICY allowed it to happen. People shouldn't blindly follow orders, that has been proven too many times before. But people shouldn't also make things up as they go along. THAT has been proven many times before as well.

 

But without the policy to allow, what happens when there's a situation that needs it? Unfortunately, as soon as you say DONT TASER <insert class here>, that exact situation presents itself. It's an ugly part of police work, but being a cop sometimes means writing the rules for the situation. And again, we're not talking about violating a rule here. There's no rule that says he HAS to tase the child, it gives him the option if the situation presents itself. And in this case, I feel it did not.

 

Kayback wrote: Following procedure, IN WHICH NO ONE IS HARMED, is not bad judgement. It IS very easy to both unintentionally damage someone as fragile as a 10 year old, and to be damaged by them in return. How bratty children react when a parent picks them up is totally different to when a scary stanger picks them up. How do you justify Tazering the 10 year old? Easy. The girl, who hasn't been identified, wasn't injured and is now at youth shelter. No harm, how can there be a foul? What EXACTLY was the harm in using his Tazer? KBK

 

There wasn't a harm, thank god from the cop and the child's perspective. But it very could have easily went south-those things aren't made or designed for small children, at least from my limited knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong :P).

 

But again, just because there wasn't a physical harm, doesn't mean that this doesn't damage the reputation of the cop, the department, and the system in general.

 

But regardless - let me get back to this part:  10 YEAR OLD GIRL.

 

While I can imagine a procedure that PERMITTED this (by lamely omitting to make exceptions for children and the infirm), I have a very difficult time imagining a procedure that REQUIRED this.  The officer had discretion here, and he elected to taze a child, and then blaming it on the mother's permission.

 

I simply cannot imagine an excuse for this - I have tried and failed.  Unless this girl was armed, I just cannot see what possible justification there is.

 

How about this one:  let's remove the middle man.  I go buy a taser and use it to subdue/discipline my own children.  I whip out my taser in the grocery store whenever the boy starts making a fuss.

 

How long before somebody calls social services?  Heck, how long before I get tackled by concerned citizens? 

 

But then again... she's 10, which means laws don't apply to her.  

 

Yeah, it hurts to get kicked in the junk, but come on... Getting hit in the balls is pretty much a nation wide sport all through Jr. High. She's 10 years old and throwing a fit, you do not need to use a weapon on a 10 year old girl. I have an 11 year old sister and I don't care how hard she tried or how mad she was; there is no way in hell that girl could cause me any serious bodily harm without a weapon, and I'm 20 pounds underweight, untrained, and have my rockin' 'emo' hair blocking my eye sight.

 

A trained police officer has no reason what so ever to tase that girl. In the article he notes "If I would have tried to cuff her otherwise I would have broken her arm" Yes, because bones at that age are made of Styrofoam. Cop + cop-out ftw! I'm not even against cops either, I know many cops personally, I like em! Tasing a unarmed 10 year old is just stupid, I don't care how you try and twist it.

 

Either way, that really was'nt the point of what I was saying to begin with.

 

I'm not sure I've actually heard one cop approve or disapprove of this case-I did however run it by my dad, who's a retired cop, and he felt just as I did, that this was a ridiculous case. He said an officer in this situation has the ability to tell the mom to control the child, or the mom can face charges.

 

jmac3 wrote: Linus, you may say the taser is to be used when a cop goes "hands on" but why was he? Why was this girl getting cuffed? I think the more appropriate action would have been sitting her down and scaring her by saying "oh you know I could take you away to jail"

 

PariellsBack wrote: Why was the cop responding to this?  It's ridiculous.  He should have ascertained the situation, and immediately left.

 

Both of these were unfortunately probably not an option in this case. Obviously "sitting" this girl down was not working, as she was reacting violently to both parties involved. If this were a simple case of putting her on your knee and telling her horror stories, the cops would likely have never been called. I'm pretty sure this only works in Mayberry.

 

jmac3 wrote: Also, there is no anticop bias on this forum. There is an anti overextending their power bias. Every single thread on this forum has been something ridiculous like this. That is why there is a perceived bias. I remember a thread about Ryan Moats being stopped going into the hospital, but I can't find it. That wasn't so anti cop.

 

Oh, come now. There are several on this forum who will, without facts, eff the po-lice every chance they get. As I said, I don't think it's anti-cop bias that resides here so much as anti-authority. I'm not pointing fingers or naming names, and as I said it goes with the territory. I'm not shocked, so much as generally surprised at the public's A:)  ignorance of actual police protocol and B:) willingness to condemn police in every case without their knowledge of A:).

 

I don't side with this cop, I think what he did was careless and irresponsible.

 

Again, I disagree with you here man. I can get behind your support of cops, but here you're throwing your support behind the pretense that no personal responsibility exists beyond the law. The law isn't the final end-all.

 

And I'll bet you a million bucks that there's some law on the books that can be used against this officer in this situation. Just because there's law supporting the use of a taser in this circumstance does not mean there's no behavioral consequence that he could face.

 

I know a police officer that got fired for writing a letter of complaint on another department on his department letter head. This was perfectly legal, and went along with company policy, but it was unethical and he was fired on a behavioral basis.

 

Legal does not = ethical.

 

This is the basis of what I'm trying to say Linus.

 

And I'm not calling for more punishment, I'm wishing the current punishment had called it out for what it really was, and not stand behind the actions of the officer.  

 

As far as those who want this cop fired...meh? That opinion is going to abide in every one of these threads. To each his own, ain't gonna happen though.

 

I am.  I want him permanently out of uniform, and then I want him in prison.

 

I have yet to hear anybody propose any imagined fact scenario where this is not completely unconscionable.  This is aggravated battery of a minor.