Police taser boy with broken back 19 times

[KC5AV]

At least two.

[Liberty]

There are definitely two sides to this story.

Yeah, but one side of the story smells bad, and the other isn't talking because he doesn't remember a thing.
Lately though it seems when these the facts come out and the cops give their side of the story it just looks worse for the cops. Remember how everyone tried to defend the snake shooting cops who killed the little boy, and the cops that killed 90 year old Mrs Johnson. If it looks like a Snickers, smells like a Snickers and taste like a Snickers i'ts probably a Snickers .

[jhutto]

There are good cops, bad cops, those wanting to cover up, and the like. We are all human, and subject to our own issues. I do not find it hard to believe any individual or group of officers have or will act inappropriately. I do find it extremely dissatisfactory that the majority of these type incidences are either overlooked, or enforced. Even more, I find it appalling that those of us who are not Leo’s are not afforded the same benefit of the doubt, and are often times intentionally represented in a biased manner by law enforcement agencies in order get convictions "because it's their job". Honestly I do not mean to offend any members of this forum, or any outstanding law enforcement officers. I have met quite a few who were honest, and understanding. But the system itself needs more checks and balances.

[Elvis]

I find it appalling that people can assume the LEO's are automatically guilty of something based on a slanted story like that.

[flintknapper]

I find it appalling that people can assume the LEO's are automatically guilty of something based on a slanted story like that.

Not nearly enough information.

These days... any "suspicions" should first be directed at the "newspapers" , who are famous for "tailoring" a story or sensationalizing things.

[seamusTX]

"Media bias" can be a way of saying that the story does not conform to your prejudices.

Let's review the facts in this case: A 16-year-old skinny, white, American kid has severe injuries from an unexplained fall. There is no evidence that he was intoxicated or engaged in any nefarious activity. He has not been charged with a crime. The cops don't deny tasering him. They say he was combative and tried to run into traffic. Beyond that, they're not commenting.

Government at any level has significant taxpayer-funded resources and usually can manage to get out the message that they want.

This incident occurred July 19, and nothing has been posted on the web since August 8 except for repostings of earlier articles.

Maybe we'll never know what really happened.

Tasers are perfectly appropriate for subjects that are combative or trying to escape custody. If police use them for compliance on people who are not a physical threat, I think a little "counseling" and "retraining" are in order.

- Jim

[Elvis]

True we don't have enough information to make an intelligent decision whether the Officers actions were proper in this situation but there are a few interesting tidbits.

1. A couple called 911 because they were concerned for the boy’s safety. ("We called the police. My wife was afraid he was going to get ran over or hit," said witness Doug Messersmith. "He looked a little agitated but, other than that, he didn't look to be falling down drunk or anything like that.")

2. Police show up and find the boy has fallen off a bridge and is belligerent. ("However, Ozark police say the wounded boy was a threat." "He refused to comply with the officers and so the officers had to deploy their Tasers in order to subdue him," Capt. Thomas Rousset said. "He is making incoherent statements; he's also making statements such as, 'Shoot cops, kill cops,' things like that. So there was cause for concern to the officers.")

3. Officers did not cause any of the injuries to the boy. ("According to the doctors, all injuries are consistent with a fall," Samantha said.)

4. Could it be that Junior was attempting suicide? ("His father said Hutchinson did not jump but fell onto the pavement; however, no one knows why.")

5. Could it be that Junior was attempting to finish the deed my running into traffic? ("It's a big concern for the Officers to keep this guy out of traffic, to keep him from getting hurt," Rousset said.)

6. The only reports of the taser being used 19 times seems to be coming from the parents. ("Parents of a 16-year-old boy in intensive care with a broken back want to know why police Tasered their son 19 times rather than calling an ambulance for help.")

7. The parents also want to jump on the "Lets Sue the Police" bandwagon and need an excuse to do so. This statement contradicts the medical doctors working on junior. ("His father claims if police hadn't stunned the teenager 19 times, his critical surgery would not have been delayed by two days. “The Tasering increased his white blood cell count and caused him to have a temperature so they could not go into the operation," he said.")

8. If the parents win the lawsuit perhaps they will mandate all Officers carry a portable X-ray machine with them to determine if someone has any injuries before employing any use of force. ("I'm not an officer, but I don't see the reason for Tasering somebody lying there with a broken back. I don't consider that a threat," his aunt Samantha said.)

Again I wasn't there but perhaps Junior was having a bad day and jumped off the bridge.

Perhaps the Police arrived (and called an ambulance) then attempted to get Junior under control as he was trying to run out in traffic while ranting threats.

Perhaps the term "Broken Back" means cracked vertebrae not a severed spinal cord and junior was very capable of doing more harm.

Perhaps the parents are attempting to gain monetarily on their inability to raise junior properly and are making statements to the press to bolster their cause.

Perhaps the Police are doing a complete investigation before making any incorrect or unsubstantiated statements.

Now don't get me wrong, if the Police were out of line and abused their authority I and others in Law Enforcement will be the first to condemn their actions.

Perhaps we should wait until we get the rest of the story before we comment.

[WildBill]

Perhaps we should wait until we get the rest of the story before we comment.

You brought up a lot of good points to consider. The problem with this incident is that we probably will never get "the rest of the story." Most of these stories disappear from the news and the public's memory in a short amount of time so if we waited for the complete information, we would never have the opportunity to comment. So we base our theories and conclusions on incomplete and flawed information. Unfortunately, that's the way it is.

[KBCraig]

True we don't have enough information to make an intelligent decision whether the Officers actions were proper in this situation but there are a few interesting tidbits.

Thanks for some good observations, which acknowledge both sides.

Now don't get me wrong, if the Police were out of line and abused their authority I and others in Law Enforcement will be the first to condemn their actions.

No offense, but history doesn't bear this out. I read a couple of LEO forums, but only actively participate in one, and it's been apparent to me for some time that the thin gray line and thin blue line differ in one important way: when fellow staff in corrections are found to be dirty, corrupt, or abusive, we loudly, publicly condemn them and urge full prosecution. The wagons aren't circled, there is no wall of silence, we want them gone. The sooner the better, for the safety of those who remain.

On the blue side, the departmental response to abuse cases has become almost formulaic: denial, followed promise of a full investigation, followed by an official pronouncement that no wrongdoing was found, the officer was fully justified, and the case was closed.

Now, don't get me wrong: the individual officer involved can be going through a personal Hades. No matter how innocent he is proclaimed to be by the PAO, behind the scenes he is on notice that he's in deep kimchi. He knows --and his fellow officers supporting him know-- that the political environment and public perception won't affect whether his career is blacklisted, destined for permanent Traffic Division duty.

But: All public pronouncements by the official department spokesperson are intended to minimize liability for the department (if their officer is wrong, they are liable). The most damaging wall of silence, the one from which the public draw their conclusions, is on an official departmental level.

Perhaps we should wait until we get the rest of the story before we comment.

Others have already made this point, but I have to agree: from whom will we get the rest of the story? From the department/agency trying to minimize their liability? From reporters relying on that department/agency and their public affairs officer?

This is not a bash against you, brother: just pointing out why public perception of LEO integrity is damaged even more by damage control.

[Elvis]

Looks like you will have alot more chances to test your theory.

http://forums.prisonofficer.org/hall-sh ... y-c-o.html

http://forums.prisonofficer.org/hall-sh ... dding.html

http://forums.prisonofficer.org/hall-sh ... -plus.html

http://forums.prisonofficer.org/hall-sh ... l-sex.html

http://forums.prisonofficer.org/hall-sh ... drugs.html

http://forums.prisonofficer.org/hall-sh ... scape.html

[DoubleJ]

http://forums.prisonofficer.org/hall-sh ... -plus.html

That ^ one didn't involve a staff member, other than the guys who got the girly-armed loser.

[seamusTX]

Elvis, you have made your position perfectly clear. I will have no further comment unless new facts about the case emerge.

- Jim

[WarHawk-AVG]

Still tazing someone 19 times...cmon..the tazer is NOT a compliance device..and I support my LEO's 100% but this doesn't make me feel comfortable

The proper use for the tazer is a less than lethal weapon in need of protection for the officer...instead of drilling a badguy in the chest with his .40 Glock, he tazers him then cuffs him..problem solved..but you don't fry a kid 19 times because he can't get up..you don't fry someone because they won't listen (unless they are acting excessively aggressive), unfortunately too many officers are going to the tazer as a compliance enforcement tool instead of a protection tool.

I though these officers were trained to use it properly, or do police forces say a LEO can deploy the tazer in any situation he deems fit?

I sure hope this works out in the end

[KBCraig]

Looks like you will have alot more chances to test your theory.

You prove my point: we air our dirty laundry. Doesn't mean we have more of it.

[srothstein]

Kevin,

The good news for law enforcement is that we are moving more towards an atmosphere exactly lik eyours. It is taking time and there is still a lot of old memories to be overcome on both sides, but we are making progress. The younger officers are much less likely to protect an officer they know is guilty. What I see them doing is a lot like what i do. We stand up and say we need more info. We ask people not to judge based on news reports that have only one side covered. Let a full investigation occur, then respond. The bad news is that we too often see police departments investigate themselves, and that does not breed faith, even when it is done correctly.

Take the case we are looking at as an example. We do not know that the police tasered the boy 19 times. We have the father saying this, but nothing to indicate how he knows or came up with this figure. and yet, we still have people saying 19 times is excessive.

And most of us will never know the truth because the news media will not report the police told the truth. That doesn't sell papers.

I like the idea of another agency investigating all complaints, but that is not well received yet in law enforcement. I think it is coming.