However as a Canadian officer correctly points out, the alternative is often the use of a firearm — deadly force to be sure. Taser’s own website (admittedly a for-profit company) indicates numbers that are so drastically in favor of TASER deployment, that argument is difficult.

If you don’t trust the company that makes them, how about the departments that use them. In almost all major police departments, the TASER is considered “intermediate” force. That means it can be used when someone is fighting, charging, threatening to injure or kill, or displaying a non-deadly weapon at the police. With the TASER, that individual is immediately and effectively incapacitated. I was “TASERED” in the police academy. It hurt. But one minute later I was fine. The same could not be said of a steel baton to the knee (guaranteed lifetime injury), a bite by a police dog (arrgh), or a gunshot (duh!).

Watch the video here, and ask yourself the single, key, and only question about TASERS: Would I rather get hit with this, or one of the alternatives. The dog in the background of this video is ready to take care of business. I think the suspect himself explains the benefits of the TASER better than I ever could. That should settle the argument.

Sometimes police work is ugly. That is the suspects’ fault, not the cops’. Remember my favorite quote:

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

Sleep well.

Every so often during my tenure as a detective, I would sit on the witness stand and describe for the jury what the suspect had done. As I heard the words come out of my mouth I would think to myself, “thank god they are still dumb, or we might not catch anyone!”

Without judging the specific tactics, I think my point is well made in the video below.  That drunk should have listened. 

But I have to call B.S. when I see it.  The Associated Press is reporting in this article that the New York City police union is suing to prevent mandatory alcohol breath testing after an officer fires their weapon.  The union representative apparently sees no reason to subject his constituents to, “the humiliation and psychological trauma” of a mandatory breath test.

What?

I have probably administered 500 of those things and I assure you the humiliation and trauma is no more than that experienced when blowing up a balloon.  Arguably less, since balloons make you look so silly.  I simply cannot fathom why a police officer who just shot or shot at someone would want to hide their sobriety status. 

I did fashion some arguments in my head: 

“First this, then what is next?”

“Vice officers are allowed to drink on duty!”

“The officer is being treated like a perp!”

Each of these provide tempting cover to duck away from the actual state of affairs.  Certainly there is a slippery slope issue.  The way you deal with that is to be watchful and call out the city when they go to far.  This breath test isn’t the point of no return.  Similarly, I understand that vice officers are allowed to drink on duty.  The union’s duty here is to ensure language is placed in the policy to take care of them.  And yes, the officer is being treated like a perp.  Every cop in America knows they are a murder suspect the moment they make that fateful decision.  That is why we have lawyers and unions and policies to protect us. 

If modern police departments truly plan to earn the public trust that we so enthusiastically court, our transparency and level of disclosure will have to go considerably further than simply finding out whether an officer who just shot someone is drunk!

A young girl was being arrested for stealing things. That is because stealing is wrong. Then she resisted lawful efforts to handcuff her. That is wrong, too. Then she bit the police officer. Still wrong. Eventually the police officer grew tired of all this malarkey and punched the suspect once, pepper sprayed and arrested her. That is allowed.

The cop did right, the suspect did wrong. So that’s the end of this post, right?

Not so fast.

You see, there is a problem in this video; one that is clear as day, but many of you might have missed it. In this video, the cop is white and the suspect is not. That will make this arrest an “issue.” It shouldn’t, but it will. Note the interview in the news video. She is concerned that the cop did not explain what he was doing, and that he did not read the girl her rights. What? Her rights? Should he have done that before or after the bite?

By the way, the police almost never have to advise you of your Miranda rights in a field arrest. See this article and learn why TV has it all wrong.

Anyhow, I hope this story goes nowhere. Sadly, I know better. I think this one will blow up, at least locally. They almost always do. Think Duke lacrosse rape case.

I wonder how many of the “community activists” that take up this young girl’s cause would be equally outraged if the suspect was white and the cop was black. I am guessing exactly zero.

Anyhow, last shift the officers who work for me had to arrest a guy for beating up his wife. Nothing too serious on the injuries, but he was going to jail for certain. Who is there to arrest him? Count with me here, folks: three armed police officers (guns drawn), one police sergeant, one police canine (sounding quite hungry) and the Philosophical Cop.

The officers order him to “Freeze” and put his hands up. His response? A highly intellectual debate on whether we have the constitutional right to be interrupting his evening.

Huh?

Say for a minute we did not. Then he is staring down 5 rogue copsand a hungry German Sheperd. That almost seems like a better motivation to follow our directions!

Fortunately for this particular genius (not so much for the pooch, who didn’t get to “play”) he finally gave up. The whole thing just reminded me that police work can be summed up in a few little sound bites. The most prominent one:

“What the hell were you thinking, man?”