Q:

I think the only reason taser is before OC is because you don't generally accidently taze other officers lol.   It's funny when you hear "OC OC" you can immediately see the faces of other officers and people go from "get him" to "FML" lol.

Q:

I think the only reason taser is before OC is because you don't generally accidently taze other officers lol.   It's funny when you hear "OC OC" you can immediately see the faces of other officers and people go from "get him" to "FML" lol.

I know...I was a 'cop' before, and had to requalify every year for OC and Taser. 

The answer to your question is: YES.

On the escalation of force tables, the tazer is actually lesser than OC spray. An officer just needs to justify in his report that you were somehow being non-compliant, which resulted in obstruction of his law enforcement duties and therefore 'justifies' his use of force with the taser.

Does it make it right? No; and if taken to court and proven that the escalation of force wasn't necessary, then it could be his ass, although most of the cases against HPD are dropped.

We all know many of the cops in HPD have ego problems that make them feel like they are invincible and can do whatever the hell they feel like, but as long as they can word their reports the right way, they can justify anything.

Your a little incorrect with you statement about OC vs. Taser deployments on the use of force continuum.  I read through some of your post and you said that you used to be a "cop" I don't know you or when you did your public service in Hawaii but its the opposite now.

Your a little incorrect with you statement about OC vs. Taser deployments on the use of force continuum.  I read through some of your post and you said that you used to be a "cop" I don't know you or when you did your public service in Hawaii but its the opposite now.

While OC  is meant to subdue individuals with minimal force, it has the potential to not only effect large numbers of people, but also bring forth possible unforeseen physical reactions and/or death in certain individuals who are sensitive to the chemical constitution of OC; hence the reason it is technically a chemical weapon. This is why normally its unarmed combat, ASP/Club, taser, attack dog, OC, presentation of deadly force, and deadly force, in that exact order.

Not sure which EOF policy your department has in place, but that's what we followed.

Sorry, I disagree. Is the legal open carrier up to "no good" when an officer stops him solely for open carrying (which would be illegal for the officer to do...)? Is his (or her) refusal to provide ID (which is not required in most states) "...disobey[ing] an order of compliance..." and ipso facto justify escalation to deadly force?

Respectfully, as I stated there are good cops and bad cops thus good decisions (contacts) and bad by PD. Why is it so hard to allow a contact whether right or wrong to be cleared up clearly by PD and then be on your way. I think the problem is mainly  inflated egos. I understand the fine line of details we are talking about here, but, if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up and be done with. If you are up to doing wrong I am glad they made contact with you and clear up the mess as well. Respectfully.

The open carry discussion does not even apply here so I am confused of the point trying to be made? If the law says he must show ID then he must…the ego thing again…if not, well then of course he should not have to show it to the PD.

We send 18 year olds off to war, so a 17 year old is more than capable of being a highly lethal threat especially when armed with a knife.  Try to stab someone and who ever says that they would simply subdue them physically or use a Taser, is taking a huge and unwise gamble with their own life and perhaps that of another.  Yes in certain instances up close a highly trained and skilled fighter may be better off closing distance quickly and attempting to control the limb with the knife, but lets face it, that takes a years of practice and even knife fighters or martial artists, will say that you are going to get cut in a knife fight.   We all hear about a 21 foot rule and action vs. reaction, but a good way to look at the 21 foot rule is that if you are 21 feet away or less the rule is that you ARE going to get stabbed or cut.  Even much further out, if you cannot retreat or place an object between you and the attacker, or mount your own defense and employ it effectively, you still stand a huge chance of serious bodily injury or death.

Relying on a Taser in an up close dynamic situation such as encountering a surprise knife attack at close range is asking to incur serious bodily injury or possible death.  Most people cannot draw and fire their pistol reliably in this situation before getting hit and obviously one Officer got cut or hit in the vest from the blade.  The pistol is in a position in the holster that is hopefully ingrained in the subconscious mind to perform the draw and it is hard enough to get it out before getting cut or stabbed.  Now imagine trying to draw the Taser from a different location that is in an offside position often on the thigh.  Taser in this instance is not the correct choice.  It is a lethal force encounter and the more correct option outside of physical control, which it sounds like was attempted, is to go to the pistol in an attempt to stop the threat, not the Taser.

There is perhaps more about this 17 year old that the public will not know about as he is a juvenile and will not be made public, such as arrest records, any type of evaluations, etc... and I will just leave it at that.

As mentioned by mf-tom the HPD does not have the old use of force "ladder continuum" which is a bit dated within LE in general, but utilizes a more modern version and the Taser is placed at a higher level of use of force vs OC spray.  While the Taser could clearly be an option if you look at use of force as a whole and I will not discount any situation, but clearly in a situation described in the story and it seems pretty clear that the Taser is not the correct option.

Here I go again...
   
   We had 3 LEO on scene apparently within the 7 yd  "buffer zone",  2 of which made (or received) physical contact before the 17 yr old pulls a blade. 

Here I go again...
   
   We had 3 LEO on scene apparently within the 7 yd  "buffer zone",  2 of which made (or received) physical contact before the 17 yr old pulls a blade. 

reports are saying he was in the counselor's office
so they had to be in the same room, and were probably limited to close contact due to the size of the room
plus, there is a great chance of "friendly fire" at such distances
bad situation all around
neighbors said there was a disturbance at his house earlier that morning
said he was running up and down the street screaming
sounds like drugs, manic, or psychotic

They keep saying "shooting" and it gives the impression that a student went on a shooting rampage. They need to chang the title to "Police fire shots at knife weilding sudent"

The school called the police, but the media keeps printing it as a fricking shooting when its the police that fired the only shots. WTF!!

Respectfully, as I stated there are good cops and bad cops thus good decisions (contacts) and bad by PD. Why is it so hard to allow a contact whether right or wrong to be cleared up clearly by PD and then be on your way. I think the problem is mainly  inflated egos. I understand the fine line of details we are talking about here, but, if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up and be done with. If you are up to doing wrong I am glad they made contact with you and clear up the mess as well. Respectfully.

The open carry discussion does not even apply here so I am confused of the point trying to be made? If the law says he must show ID then he must…the ego thing again…if not, well then of course he should not have to show it to the PD.

Why should "we" have to give up rights, rights that all LE should know well? Should we all be subject to random stops and searches? And you are correct, that the problem is, often, inflated egos, mainly on the side of LE.

It is difficult for some to acquiesce to illegal detentions and requests for ID because many believe that the current erosion of our rights stem from the cumulative effect of these small, improper, but albeit seemingly innocent and innocuous encroachments. Your statement, "if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up..." is way to close to the classic "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide"  statement used so frequently to try and search without a warrant.

The open carry analogy does indeed apply and is quite demonstrative in the issue being discussed. If open carry is legal, then you cannot be stopped and detained merely for open carrying. Yet, it happens all the time. LE often try to bully or intimidate the open carrier to provide ID or to remain despite no legal authority to do so. And while I am not a big fan of the "let's open carry with a video camera just to goad the police into making contact"  you have to admit that the vast majority of the time the police response is improper in terms of forcing a non-consensual encounter and illegally requesting ID for nothing more than legal behavior. Prior attempts to appease LE in these types of situations by providing ID and not questioning the legal authority to make such stops has, IMHO (and many others...) contributed to the now all too familiar scenario, well documented on numerous You Tube videos, of LE illegally detaining open carriers. So, should legal open carriers, who are stopped illegally, comply with illegal requests, some made under threat of arrest or force, without attempting to assert their rights? And if they don't "comply" should that fact alone justify LE escalating the level of force?

The other analogy is that of filming LE. While it is completely legal in every state to film LE as long as you do not actively interfere, there are many, many instances of LE telling people to stop filming, sometimes under threat of arrest. Should refusing to stop, hence failing to comply with the officers illegal demands, be viewed as "dong something wrong" as you inferred earlier? 

Here I go again...
We had 3 LEO on scene apparently within the 7 yd  "buffer zone",  2 of which made (or received) physical contact before the 17 yr old pulls a blade. 

Let's not forget that this 17 year old, schizophrenic, NOS, runaway teen was in a school of which he was not a student of. The LEOs there not only had to protect themselves from a who-knows-how-big-of-a-kitchen knife but other staff and students of Roosevelt HS. Reading comments about how the HPD could have handled the situation with a Taser etc. is not realistic nor is it fair to assess the situation from media reports. The officers were at a disadvantage when this mentally unstable teenager pulled out a knife and manage to cut one of the officers. The general public's sentiment is that they could have disarmed this teen without use of deadly force...yeah sure, when Jet Li's stunt double comes in after the movie director orders a time out and cues the stunt man.
Fortunately, this unstable teen was stopped at the school's admin area. He could have easily gone on a stabbing rampage on campus.

Here's an experiment: Lock yourself in a small room with a very pissed off feral cat or mongoose. Try and catch it without getting scratched, cut or bit.

Why should "we" have to give up rights, rights that all LE should know well? Should we all be subject to random stops and searches? And you are correct, that the problem is, often, inflated egos, mainly on the side of LE.

It is difficult for some to acquiesce to illegal detentions and requests for ID because many believe that the current erosion of our rights stem from the cumulative effect of these small, improper, but albeit seemingly innocent and innocuous encroachments. Your statement, "if you are doing no wrong it will be cleared up..." is way to close to the classic "if you're innocent you have nothing to hide"  statement used so frequently to try and search without a warrant.

The open carry analogy does indeed apply and is quite demonstrative in the issue being discussed. If open carry is legal, then you cannot be stopped and detained merely for open carrying. Yet, it happens all the time. LE often try to bully or intimidate the open carrier to provide ID or to remain despite no legal authority to do so. And while I am not a big fan of the "let's open carry with a video camera just to goad the police into making contact"  you have to admit that the vast majority of the time the police response is improper in terms of forcing a non-consensual encounter and illegally requesting ID for nothing more than legal behavior. Prior attempts to appease LE in these types of situations by providing ID and not questioning the legal authority to make such stops has, IMHO (and many others...) contributed to the now all too familiar scenario, well documented on numerous You Tube videos, of LE illegally detaining open carriers. So, should legal open carriers, who are stopped illegally, comply with illegal requests, some made under threat of arrest or force, without attempting to assert their rights? And if they don't "comply" should that fact alone justify LE escalating the level of force?

The other analogy is that of filming LE. While it is completely legal in every state to film LE as long as you do not actively interfere, there are many, many instances of LE telling people to stop filming, sometimes under threat of arrest. Should refusing to stop, hence failing to comply with the officers illegal demands, be viewed as "dong something wrong" as you inferred earlier?

Look, you seem to have taken great interest in my comments for some reason. I am simply saying that if you are contacted just clear the damn thing up and your done OK! Your apparent disdain for LE has clouded your reasonable mind.

Now if open carry were to be legal here then hey I am game. In other states where it is OK I am game. As AGAIN I stated there are good and bad cops with good and bad outcomes  when contacts with them happen. Don't let a dislike for LE get in the way of a reasonable statement.

.....

Here's an experiment: Lock yourself in a small room with a very pissed off feral cat or mongoose. Try and catch it without getting scratched, cut or bit.

Exactly.  This feral cat / mongoose analogy is stupidly simple for anyone to understand.  Except now your wresting a very large cat with a very large claw, mouth, feet, hands.  If no one has ever had the opportunity to fight with a crazy person or a drug addict, or worse a crazy drug addict, it can be an interesting experience.  Pupule strength is no joke.   

Thanks I am going to borrowing this one. 

Look, you seem to have taken great interest in my comments for some reason. I am simply saying that if you are contacted just clear the damn thing up and your done OK! Your apparent disdain for LE has clouded your reasonable mind.

Now if open carry were to be legal here then hey I am game. In other states where it is OK I am game. As AGAIN I stated there are good and bad cops with good and bad outcomes  when contacts with them happen. Don't let a dislike for LE get in the way of a reasonable statement.

No, you look...first, I have no "disdain" for LE. My brother was a cop, I have many friends who are cops, and I respect the work they do. That being said, I don't have a problem pointing out problems, be it with cops or hardheaded Second Amendment supporters who don't seem to appreciate how ALL of our rights are important and deserve to be defended.

I took interest in your comment because it implied to me that you were all for giving up your rights, and seemed to suggest that others do so as well so that you could "clear up" any issue you may have in the context of an improper or illegal police detainment. I simply pointed out that some, myself included, would rather stand up for our rights, in a manner that would be most conducive to changing a longstanding and incremental encroachment of not only our Second Amendment rights, but also our First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. You seem intent on abdicating your rights in an effort to appease an officer conducting an illegal detainment so as to end that encounter as quickly as possible.

Additionally, you seem to have the attitude that if you question the stop, or assert your rights, you must be doing something wrong, much like the oft used "if you ain't hiding anything you won't mind if we search..." mindset. That is a mindset that leads to blind obedience despite clear Constitutional affronts. And that, is what I was questioning.

Listen, I'm not a cop basher and I don't mean to call you out. I will question your intent if you post something I think needs clarification or appears to dismiss standing up for your rights, all of them and not just your Second Amendment ones.....maybe you shouldn't let your dislike or disdain for a thinking and reasonable citizenry cloud your mind or get in the way of a reasonable discussion on your statements and positions on matters.

Aloha

No, you look...first, I have no "disdain" for LE. My brother was a cop, I have many friends who are cops, and I respect the work they do. That being said, I don't have a problem pointing out problems, be it with cops or hardheaded Second Amendment supporters who don't seem to appreciate how ALL of our rights are important and deserve to be defended.

I took interest in your comment because it implied to me that you were all for giving up your rights, and seemed to suggest that others do so as well so that you could "clear up" any issue you may have in the context of an improper or illegal police detainment. I simply pointed out that some, myself included, would rather stand up for our rights, in a manner that would be most conducive to changing a longstanding and incremental encroachment of not only our Second Amendment rights, but also our First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. You seem intent on abdicating your rights in an effort to appease an officer conducting an illegal detainment so as to end that encounter as quickly as possible.

Additionally, you seem to have the attitude that if you question the stop, or assert your rights, you must be doing something wrong, much like the oft used "if you ain't hiding anything you won't mind if we search..." mindset. That is a mindset that leads to blind obedience despite clear Constitutional affronts. And that, is what I was questioning.

Listen, I'm not a cop basher and I don't mean to call you out. I will question your intent if you post something I think needs clarification or appears to dismiss standing up for your rights, all of them and not just your Second Amendment ones.....maybe you shouldn't let your dislike or disdain for a thinking and reasonable citizenry cloud your mind or get in the way of a reasonable discussion on your statements and positions on matters.

Aloha

I agree with this mostly.

I think, IMHO, what this comes down to is the fine line between RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES.  Americans are protected from unlawful searches and seizure.  We also have a responsibility to help law enforcement if possible to keep everyone safe.  Cooperating with an investigation, even something as innocent looking as providing ID, needs to be closely examined.  If that cooperation does nothing toward assuring public safety or catching a criminal, then you have no responsibility to provide ID with a few exceptions like operating  a motor vehicle, consuming alcohol, etc.

In today's digital age, information is power.  Providing the police more information simply empowers them to POTENTIALLY cause you problems.  So, compliance is bad ... cooperation is good IF you don't cooperate yourself into incriminating yourself.

Everyone should learn to say, "No" once in a while, and saying that to law enforcement is included.  One day, you'll wish you had kept your mouth shut while awaiting trial for something you didn't realize was illegal or that you were even doing wrong.  Don't do the COPs job for them.  The only reason they get upset when you refuse to provide ID is (1) they don't like non-compliance, and (2) they will have holes in the report they have to file later, and that looks bad to their bosses!

No, you look...first, I have no "disdain" for LE. My brother was a cop, I have many friends who are cops, and I respect the work they do. That being said, I don't have a problem pointing out problems, be it with cops or hardheaded Second Amendment supporters who don't seem to appreciate how ALL of our rights are important and deserve to be defended.

I took interest in your comment because it implied to me that you were all for giving up your rights, and seemed to suggest that others do so as well so that you could "clear up" any issue you may have in the context of an improper or illegal police detainment. I simply pointed out that some, myself included, would rather stand up for our rights, in a manner that would be most conducive to changing a longstanding and incremental encroachment of not only our Second Amendment rights, but also our First, Fourth and Tenth Amendment rights. You seem intent on abdicating your rights in an effort to appease an officer conducting an illegal detainment so as to end that encounter as quickly as possible.

Additionally, you seem to have the attitude that if you question the stop, or assert your rights, you must be doing something wrong, much like the oft used "if you ain't hiding anything you won't mind if we search..." mindset. That is a mindset that leads to blind obedience despite clear Constitutional affronts. And that, is what I was questioning.

Listen, I'm not a cop basher and I don't mean to call you out. I will question your intent if you post something I think needs clarification or appears to dismiss standing up for your rights, all of them and not just your Second Amendment ones.....maybe you shouldn't let your dislike or disdain for a thinking and reasonable citizenry cloud your mind or get in the way of a reasonable discussion on your statements and positions on matters.

Aloha

And I the same for clarification. I am done with you and your blahblahblah. Thank you and respectfully.

And I the same for clarification. I am done with you and your blahblahblah. Thank you and respectfully.

You know as I read more of your comments you purport things that are not even nearly close to what I am trying to say. Why you would come up with this off the wall views for my statements baffles me.
You can try and make me into something I am not all you want to inflate your ego or your position or whatever it is you seem to be lacking, go right ahead; have at and have fun if it makes your life better.

You know as I read more of your comments you purport things that are not even nearly close to what I am trying to say. Why you would come up with this off the wall views for my statements baffles me.
You can try and make me into something I am not all you want to inflate your ego or your position or whatever it is you seem to be lacking, go right ahead; have at and have fun if it makes your life better.

I've got little problems with reading comprehension; I read your comments in the same light as HiCarry.  That said, if you didn't mean it that way, you might exercise more care with what you type!

Going back to the topic at hand...
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24596327/roosevelt-suspect-to-leave-hospital
We will be paying for this teen's treatment. Infuriating. Parent's should exercise responsibility. Mom has no right to complain that she can't see her son - she failed so now the state has to take care of her problem. She needs no attorney she needs to be held accountable, so that her child doesn't endanger others. The bigger topic at hand is a parent's supervision over her son; it is akin to firearms owners having accountability over their guns. The situation could have developed into something worse hadn't LE intervened.

Going back to the topic at hand...
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/24596327/roosevelt-suspect-to-leave-hospital
We will be paying for this teen's treatment. Infuriating. Parent's should exercise responsibility. Mom has no right to complain that she can't see her son - she failed so now the state has to take care of her problem. She needs no attorney she needs to be held accountable, so that her child doesn't endanger others. The bigger topic at hand is a parent's supervision over her son; it is akin to firearms owners having accountability over their guns. The situation could have developed into something worse hadn't LE intervened.

Too true, this kid's history says it all.