> How had he "resisted arrest"?
A police officer told him to stop and laid hands on him. He did not stop and evaded the officer's grasp. That's resisting arrest.
> And how did that necessitate the use of torture?
It's not torture. According to US law and Black's Law Dictionary, torture is the infliction of pain to obtain information. Know your terms.
I have been Tasered. Being Tasered hurts, but so does being pepper sprayed, placed in a wrist lock or arm-bar control hold, or for that matter, struck with a baton or shot.
> I didn't know that Tasers had been around for "several hundred years".
Police have. This is hardly the first time that the use of force by government agents has been considered. In English common law at one time, for example, a person could lawfully attempt to evade arrest so long as physical contact had not yet been made. Once touched, the person had to surrender or then face additional charges.
There is a rich and terrible history regarding how much force the government is allowed to use to control a person. We are re-visiting this history in ugly ways today, which is why this discussion is so important.
When you equate Tasers to torture, you imply that waterboarding and stress positions are OK.
> Like I said, I'd choose broken bones over instant compliance with any verbal order issued by a cop.
If I were your health insurance carrier, I'd cancel your coverage.
Instant compliance with a (lawful) verbal order from a peace officer is the LAW. If you don't like it, call your legislator, petition for the law to be changed, but when you get your bones broken, don't come complaining.
California Penal Code
"Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer"
"148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment."
California Criminal Jury Instructions
"2656. Resisting Peace Officer"
"Someone commits an act willfully when he or she does it willingly or on purpose. It is not required that he or she intend to break the law, hurt someone else, or gain any advantage."
"2670. Lawful Performance: Peace Officer"
"The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that was lawfully performing (his/her) duties as a peace officer. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of . A peace officer is not lawfully performing his or her duties if he or she is (unlawfully arresting or detaining someone/ [or] using unreasonable or excessive force when making or attempting to make an otherwise lawful arrest or detention)."
" [A peace officer may legally detain someone if [the person consents to the detention or if]: 1. Specific facts known or apparent to the officer lead him or her to suspect that the person to be detained has been, is, or is about to be involved in activity relating to crime; AND 2. A reasonable officer who knew the same facts would have the same suspicion."
"Any other detention is unlawful."
"Lawfulness of Officer’s Conduct Based on Objective Standard"
"The rule “requires that the officer’s lawful conduct be established as an objective fact; it does not establish any requirement with respect to the defendant’s mens rea.��? (People v. Jenkins (2000) 22 Cal.4th 900, 1020 [95 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044].) The defendant’s belief about whether the officer was or was not acting lawfully is irrelevant. (Id at p. 1021.)"
> Why do you have so much trouble addressing the issue as it stands?
> I have the facts.
No, actually, you do not have the facts. Knowing nothing about the law, personal combat, police tactics and techniques, and the Taser device, you present your opinion that the Taser is equivalent to deadly force.
> There are videos of people who are NOT a physical threat to the cops who ARE being "tazed" by the cops.
You weren't there. You didn't read their reports. You didn't speak to the arrested party or eyewitnesses. You have no idea whether or not the people in question were a physical threat to the police, based on the information the police had at the time. You only know what the video showed during that snapshot of time.
Since you appear to have no training in law enforcement, defensive tactics, skilled observation and the basics of the law (and certainly correct me if this appearance is inaccurate) . . . your ability to understand what you see on the video is very much lacking.
Further, "for example" is not proof. Just because you have one or two or even a hundred cases where a Taser was improperly used, does not mean that the Taser should only be used when justified as deadly force.
So? I've got a picture in my history book of a Vietnamese guerrilla being executed by a so-called police chief. Does that mean revolvers should not be carried by police?
> Those videos support my position and contradict your's.
> Try focusing on the facts instead of your need to presume that I do not know the facts. Okay?
No, because you're wrong on the facts and your inability to recognize this is blocking you from further consideration of the subject.
If you want to make a case that Tasers should be more heavily regulated, do so. If you feel that Tasers are being over-used by police, you may be surprised to discover that I agree with you. But when you say that:
> Tasers should ONLY be used instead of SHOOTING someone. If it isn't a "deadly force" situation, then Tasers are NOT an option.
You are wrong on the facts. Hundreds of agencies carry Tasers. Agencies have been sued for NOT employing Tasers when they were called for, in preference to a firearm. Agencies have even been sued for failure to HAVE Tasers where they could have been employed as an alternative to deadly force.
So Tasers are an option and your denial on the subject does not serve you well.