Federal appeals court sets standards for taser use by po-po

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Police need reasons to believe a suspect is dangerous before firing a Taser and can't use their stun gun simply because the person is disobeying orders or acting erratically, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday.

The decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sets judicial standards for police and for people who claim they were victims of excessive force after police hit them with a Taser dart.

"The objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public," Judge Kim Wardlaw said in the 3-0 ruling.

...

Wardlaw said, they inflict a "painful and frightening blow" and must be used only when substantial force is necessary and other options are unavailable.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...G.DTL&tsp=1

[Peikko 1,575]

Good ruling.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Good ruling.

I am sure the po-po apologists will disagree.

[natty bumppo 297]

tasers are out ... a good beating is now approved ....

[SMOKE 1,426]

Police need reasons to believe a suspect is dangerous before firing a Taser and can't use their stun gun simply because the person is disobeying orders or acting erratically, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Monday.

so what is considered 'dangerous'? outside of a traffic stop, isn't it still a matter of the officer's judgement?

[Otto 83]

Did they need a ruling? (Apparently so )

Am reminded of this dash-cam video from somewhere here in Texas... (this guy was 'cleared' of any wrongdoing)

[Kevin and 10]

so what is considered 'dangerous'? outside of a traffic stop, isn't it still a matter of the officer's judgement?

Bodily harm to a person would be considered dangerous.

Officers don't always use good judgment.

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

aj is now happy he can flip off the cops without being tazed.