I'm going Ain't One Brow on this, eh?
We wouldn't have heard about it but it would still be an issue.
Background: The arguments concerning police use of force spurs out of the 4th amendment regarding what is and is not reasonable siezure (including life and freedom). Tennessee vs Garner ruled:
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The same basis can be found in New Testament arguments against an eye for an eye, give a man your coat, forgiveness, the trials of humanity, and helping your fellow man improve.
The Tennessee vs. Garner case is toward the extreme, but illustrates the foundation of the
force continuum extremely well. Officers are trained to match the use of force to the need. Otherwise, an inappropriate siezure of liberty would often be applied. I'm sure you'll agree that an officer should not crack a 7 year old over the head with a billy club for walking out of a candy store with a stolen tootsie roll. If that child were to run then the officer should not taser the little ******* because "he had it coming to him".
In cases like these I'm more than willing to give police the benefit of the doubt/leeway, and rightfully so. They are in heat of the moment situations and prone to human error that they cannot be held responsible for. This instance is so far over the line and all arguments presented have broken down. Again, that is why the PD has chosen the loophole that does not actually apply.
1. She was a threat to society--There is no foundation for this and the officer's previous actions specifically imply otherwise. Nothing I've read gives any details regarding her hit and run other than it was six months prior. The cop searched the girl and left her in a room, improperly secured, and then left her unattended with the door unlocked. That tells you the cop did not believe she was a threat to society. He also did not know or suspect she was high.
2. The officer clearly could have detained her by simply grabbing her hair. Going for his taser actually slowed him down. Any trained officer can attest that they are trained to utilize force appropriate to the situation to aprehend suspects, and less-than-lethal weapons are generally not approved for offensive use. This officer was clearly much larger than this woman and could have more than easily detained the handcuffed girl using traditional, and approved, tactics.
3. Less-than-lethal weapons are not approved for offensive use. They are approved to replace lethal force where appropriate, and in the unlikely instance that they will be beneficial to save the target (suicide, running crazed into traffic).
You can see why the PD is using the loophole in #3 to justify this excessive force.
