yet more racism http://videosift.com/video/officer-tasers-62-yr-old-black-women#comment-1807112

Tags for this video have been changed from 'police, cops, taser, unnecessary, wtf, Tallahassee, florida' to 'police, cops, taser, unnecessary, wtf, Tallahassee, florida, they wonder why they hated' - edited by MrFisk

Your video, officer tasers 62 yr old black women, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm white and I've been yelled at for reaching into the back seat to get my wife's purse for her. The cop drew a taser and yelled at me to stop reaching into the back seat. I stopped, nobody got tased, and he advised us that we were driving a car that matched the description of one that had been used in an armed robbery minutes before.

The cop shouldn't have shot him, but I would have expected him to at least be prepared if the guy came back out with a weapon. I would have thought that he should have moved behind the back of the vehicle and been prepared as he yelled, not fire multiple times indiscriminately in a public area.

No, a police dog is a dog. A tazer is a tool. (I could have made a terrible joke there, but will refrain)
I understand that humans being more 'valuable' than 'animals' (as if we aren't animals) is the normal way of thinking, but you make the knee jerk assumption/implication that they are the only options, either let a dog attack a dangerous armed person that WILL hurt/kill the dog or do it manually and be hurt yourself. There are MANY other options always available that don't involve releasing the unsuspecting dog into harms way. Most don't even involve deadly force. It would NEVER be proper to let the dog attack a known armed threatening person instead of using one's brain to deal with the danger in a safer manner, but that is what you've said you would do.
As a society, we have partially reversed the thinking that 'humans are more important than animals'. That is shown by the creation of many 'preserves' that stop people from farming/hunting on land to save animals, and that ends up killing some people (through starvation, malnutrition, etc). So while your statement is usually correct, people do usually consider humans more valuable than animals, as an absolutist statement it is wrong. That kind of thinking has put us in a position where the food chains are being broken because we only thought about humans (and not very thoroughly).

I'm sorry to hear about your cat, it's a terrible thing to have to help them go, but often the right thing for them. :-(

Your comments were "a dog is a tool" and "If I were tasked with taking a person with a machete into custody, I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." Both show a complete lack of concern for the dog, or even thought for it as a living, thinking, feeling being. The latter also shows a propensity to put the unsuspecting dog in far greater danger rather than accept a manageable danger themselves. In your scenario, you could easily disarm 'Machette' with your Taser, firearm, car, other officers, etc. with minimal or no danger to the officers, only more time taken, but you say you would send in the dog to get sliced. I find that terrible and not the words of someone that truly cares for the animal.
EDIT: " I would be happy to have a dog take a chance over a person risking their life." really translates to 'I would be happy to have a dog risk their life over a person taking a chance.'...and I and others find that thinking uncaring and irresponsible towards the living, feeling being (your tool) who's care and welfare you took responsibility for.
You are quite correct, I could never be a cop. I don't have the mentality to constantly tell others what to do (and insist they follow my directions), or to deal with the drudgery of writing people tickets, paperwork, etc. I could not dehumanize people I think are criminals daily and treat them like the inhuman scum they 'are'. I would have too hard a time enforcing laws I disagreed with, and I would fear that dealing with people at their worst would make me think the worst of all people, and so cause me to treat them all like the awful criminals they are (in my mind), making me a douchebag with authoratah. I don't want to be that in any way.
I feel like being a cop is a truly hard job that screws with one's mind. Again, why I think therapy on the job should be mandatory.
Honest discussion is never a waste of time.

I have wrestled with a few people (mostly females), tackled a few people who were running from the police, pointed my weapon at a few people, and drive-stunned (taser) one guy who was resisting arrest. That's it for 30 years.

My dept. usually had around 35 officers and I've known two of them since 1975 or so who have shot at anyone. One officer shot a guy who was trying to run him over in a car, that guy was killed. The officer left the dept and found other work.
Another officer-involved shooting was an officer who shot a guy who had committed a homicide and was running away.
One shooting involved a cop who was shot at and returned fire, hitting one guy with a grazing shot.
So that's a hell of a lot of interactions with people (average about 2000 people per year arrested) with very little deadly force involved.

If you want to counsel police officers involved in using force...that's fine with me.

Grabbing at the officers gun would be immediate grounds for immediate use of deadly force, but once the suspect retreats and is no longer within reach of the officer those grounds have evaporated. The officer should afterwards be wary, but not act as if they are still in danger when the danger ended long before and now they are simply being disobeyed. That's not a legitimate reason for deadly force.
These 'witnesses' that corroborate the officers story are phantoms at best. No one has publicly come forward that corroborates his story that was actually there, all the known witnesses actually contradict the officers account and state that he was retreating, being shot at, flinched, turned, stumbled forward while raising his arms/grasping his sides and was shot another 5-6 times as he fell, including (according to the autopsy) once in the top of the head that exited through his eye...it's hard to see how he could both be a threat and in a position where he could be shot that way. I think if this was a citizen shooting, they would call that 'execution style'.
Attaching the statement of a single person or small group to an entire race is not only racist, it's simply wrong. No group is homogenous, they don't all see this the same way, even if their skin is similar in melanin content.
So, you seem to be saying a taser should only be attempted when the officer is backed up and the suspect is alone with no bystanders. I'll just say I disagree, it should always be the first choice when more than physical hands-on force is needed.
I'm guessing you've never been tazed. The complete incapacitation may stop when you stop the charge, but the residual pain, and the memory of that pain and knowledge that more can come instantly usually does stop even the angriest wanna-be supermen.

you were doing so well until you resorted to ad homs again.

pepper spray can't hurt you? tell that to the people who have died from it: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-18/news/mn-14572_1_pepper-spray-manufacturer.

There's a reason it's called less-than-lethal. Suppose you're going to next claim a taser never killed anyone? Look, I can't blame cops for using pepper spray, the risks are far outweighed by the potential benefits, but know your facts.

once again you demonstrate that you are so comfortable with casual violence that you're indifferent to the harm you can do.

No. That's simply wrong.
Cops MAY need to use more force than they are met with, they certainly do NOT need to escalate to violence every time they take someone into custody (as your post suggests)...if they did, why didn't they beat up and/or shoot the Governor of Texas?!?
There's a huge range of action they can take between doing nothing and using overwhelming deadly force. Cops that think they should use the maximum amount of force possible, to 'protect themselves' should not be cops, those are cowardly bullies with immunity and guns.
If the proper thing is to use the most force possible, why are cops given pepper spray, tasers, batons, hand to hand combat training, radios, Kevlar gloves, etc. ? In this instance, ANY of those could have been tried before shooting someone retreating, surrendering, and far enough away for any of them to be tried.
From my viewpoint, this was likely more about the cop being pissed he was ignored when he told them to stop than any fear he had of two youths that were leaving the scene, and about them 'respecting his authoratah'. That's not an acceptable reason to shoot a person....even if they're black.
For you, as a cop, to claim you should always be MORE violent than your suspect means YOU are the violent criminal (or at best, an advocate for being violently criminal)...so perhaps a cop needs to come to your home based on an anonymous tip and shoot you in the head?!?...why would you say not?...you're armed and angry and advocating deadly violence!
Cops are supposed to DE-escalate violent situations, not aggravate and escalate them. It's not just sad but frightening to hear you, a self professed long term cop, to say the exact opposite. Once again I'll ask, where are you located. If you are representative of the police there, I truly want to avoid your stomping grounds.
To me, your stance means I should meet officers with deadly force, because if they decide they 'fear' me, they'll use deadly force on me without hesitation, so killing them first is always self defense. I don't think you thought it through to conclusion saying they should always be MORE violent.

If you have no reason to believe they may be corrupt, then you simply haven't been paying attention.
For the action of the cop to be self defense, you must take his word as truth and ignore the witnesses (granted, they have not been consistent) and you must accept that it's the right method to attempt to manhandle a person for jaywalking (the reason for the stop in the first place) and that it's the right thing to do to escalate a confrontation from a fist fight directly to firearms, ignoring the other options made available like pepper spray, tasers, batons, and backup. If the officer was truly in fear, he only needed to shut and lock his door to be safe, how is that hard?

Your reading comprehension is terrible. He said clearly that it's NOT reasonable or condonable, but is understandable as a misguided attempt to 'lash out' at the system that keeps you down.

I saw lots of white people on TV rioting and looting too, but they don't count because they don't further your (seemingly racist) theories, right?

It seems you've ignored the majority of the protests that have been responsible, civil, and peaceful in favor of focusing on the minority of trouble makers (that insert themselves into ANY mass protest these days) and blame their actions on the entire community (while knowing that most of the rioters are not from the community but have traveled there in order to riot and loot).

As the one's in 'charge', is it not the police that have the responsibility to display 'responsible behavior'? I thought it was your position that behavior works on a trickle down system, where the behavior of the top is emulated all the way down...does that not make this the police chief's fault?

lucky760's reasoning is sound.

Anyone that has researched and/or trained on weapon on weapon defense, in this case knife vs. firearm knows the Tueller's Drill. It has been a standard for over thirty years. Basically,

The Tueller Drill is a self-defense training exercise to prepare against a short-range knife attack when armed only with a holstered handgun.
Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City, Utah Police Department wondered how quickly an attacker with a knife could cover 21 feet (6.4 m), so he timed volunteers as they raced to stab the target. He determined that it could be done in 1.5 seconds. These results were first published as an article in SWAT magazine in 1983 and in a police training video by the same title, "How Close is Too Close?"[1]
A defender with a gun has a dilemma. If he shoots too early, he risks being charged with murder. If he waits until the attacker is definitely within striking range so there is no question about motives, he risks injury and even death. The Tueller experiments quantified a "danger zone" where an attacker presented a clear threat.[2]
The Tueller Drill combines both parts of the original time trials by Tueller. There are several ways it can be conducted:[3]
The "attacker and shooter are positioned back-to-back. At the signal, the attacker sprints away from the shooter, and the shooter unholsters his gun and shoots at the target 21 feet (6.4 m) in front of him. The attacker stops as soon as the shot is fired. The shooter is successful only if his shot is good and if the runner did not cover 21 feet (6.4 m).
A more stressful arrangement is to have the attacker begin 21 feet (6.4 m) behind the shooter and run towards the shooter. The shooter is successful only if he was able take a good shot before he is tapped on the back by the attacker.
If the shooter is armed with only a training replica gun, a full-contact drill may be done with the attacker running towards the shooter. In this variation, the shooter should practice side-stepping the attacker while he is drawing the gun.
Mythbusters covered the drill in the 2012 episode "Duel Dilemmas". At 20 feet the gun wielder was able to shoot the charging knife attacker just as he reached the shooter. At shorter distances the knife wielder was always able to stab prior to being shot. (Wikipedia)

That a firearm, particularly a handgun, will instantly incapacitate an individual is not a working concept and is fallacious. Variables such as adrenaline and drugs are attributable. Shot placement is trumps. Anything but a CNS. central nervous system, shot is not efficacious in safely stopping the threat. Not an easy or sure target sans movement, stress, etc.

Law enforcement put their lives and safety in harm's way every day. They are not there to die needlessly. An individual with suicide by cop or a LEO's death in mind is a serious threat to be dealt with with prejudice.

By the way, research knife wounds vs. handgun wounds. There is much data, ER, medical examiner, law enforcement. The deadly seriousness of knife wounds are well documented.

Tasers...I would not want to risk my life behind one or anyone about whom I care.

I think it's utterly ridiculous to think standard operating procedure should be:

"Whoever is closer to the perp should pull out a gun and the other should put his gun away and pull out a TASER even though the perp may attack while he's making that exchange. And then! That officer should fire the TASER at the perp and hope that it stops him and he doesn't attack the other officer, but if he does attack the other officer that officer should start shooting and hope that he doesn't himself die, meanwhile the TASER-holding officer should exchange the TASER back for his gun and then start shooting hoping that the attacked officer has survived up to this point. And if that doesn't work, the cops should start running away with their arms flailing because it would be awful for them to protect themselves from someone who apparently wants to kill them."

Sorry, but that's absurd and a thousand times absurd.

By the way, I think you're wrong about saying he wasn't presenting a threat. He was absolutely presenting a threat to the officer and was definitely close enough to assault him with the knife; it only takes a split second to cover a lot of ground and kill someone with a knife.

As soon as the cops exited their vehicle he was standing there with a hand in his pocket. At that point they had to have guns drawn in case he was holding a gun in there.

Then when he revealed that it was a knife, were the officers supposed to have a discussion about which one of them should put their gun away and exchange it for a TASER?

It's also not a guarantee that a TASER will drop someone. I've seen people totally unaffected by a TASER, typically when they're on some heavy duty drugs like PCP.

The entire purpose of a police force is to put themselves in harms way to protect the public.

If he had a gun, I would completely agree with you. Hell, if he was rushing at them with the knife brandished, I would completely agree with you. Are you seriously claiming that between two cops one couldn't have tasered him with the other ready to shoot if it didn't work?

This was a clearly mentally disturbed individual and all the cops here did was make the situation worse with by immediately escalating things.

Why? If he had a knife then he wasn't presenting a threat to anyone except himself and anyone in his immediate reach. A taser would have dropped him (note I'm talking about the kind that shoots wires, not the close up version).

Hell, they could have at least tried the taser. Hell as @artician said, they could have tried de-escalating the situation by talking. If all that failed they could still have shot him. Yeah, it's a stressful potentially life-threatening situation, but that's what cops are trained for and paid to deal with,