Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Iphone Apple

New Hampshire Cops Use Taser On Woman Buying Too Many iPhones 936

Posted by timothy
from the it's-for-your-own-good-lady dept.
turbosaab writes "A woman who said she was asked to leave New Hampshire's Pheasant Lane Mall because she wanted to buy too many iPhones was pinned down by Nashua police and zapped by a Taser (video) as she shrieked in front of crowds of shoppers Tuesday. The Chinese woman from Newton, Mass blamed a language barrier for the confrontation outside the Apple Store in the Pheasant Lane Mall Tuesday afternoon. Police say Li knew exactly what they were telling her and simply refused to comply. Police said Li had $16,000 in cash in her purse at the time of her arrest and may have been purchasing the phones for unauthorized export resale."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Hampshire Cops Use Taser On Woman Buying Too Many iPhones

Comments Filter:
  • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:13AM (#42273117) Journal

    You mean selling her own property for a profit? God forbid.

  • This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:14AM (#42273133) Homepage

    Police are now so badly trained and so out of shape they can't even handle a 44 year-old, 80 pound Chinese woman, they have to resort to high tech weaponry.

  • by garcia (6573) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:15AM (#42273147) Homepage

    These sorts of events are similar to what I would have expected in countries like China, not the United States. LEOs do not need to taser most people, especially a female who appears much less powerful than the officers holding her down in the video. The tool is used as a second-to-last resort, not as as way to make an arrest easier on the officers.

    Sheesh.

  • by ZombieBraintrust (1685608) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:18AM (#42273201)
    Not really relevant. A store doesn't have to sell you multiple copies of something. You can't take the store hostage to force them to sell you more.
  • by bondsbw (888959) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:19AM (#42273213)

    But the lady clearly knew what was going on:

    Jay said her mother bought two iPhones last Friday, and was told that was the limit. When she took video of others she claimed were buying more, the store manager asked her to leave.

    And she was asked to leave and refused:

    "The management of the store asked us to have her removed. The officer approached her, told her she wasn't welcome in the store, and she refused to leave," Nashua Police Capt. Bruce Hansen said.

  • Cue the apologists (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:20AM (#42273245) Homepage Journal

    There are times to use painful, potentially fatal, means of coercion. This isn't one of them.

    Unfortunately, we're going to get a lot of people posting here claiming that simply because the police demanded she do something, and she didn't, that they were justified. The simple truth is, no, they weren't. You don't get to do anything you like to someone simply because you have a badge and they didn't do what you told them to.

    We do not live in a police state.

  • Title Is stupid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:20AM (#42273255)

    She wasn't Tazed for buying too many iphones, she was tazed for failure to comply with authorities... Whoever made the title is a simpleton. What an Idiot..

  • by Hagaric (2591241) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:22AM (#42273293)

    It seems the concept that violence is a last resort has disappeared from policing.. Increasingly, even quiet, cooperative people are pinned down, handcuffed and manhandled as a matter of course. Violence has become one of the "perks" of policework, and the evil cycle of abuse and intimidation means fewer and fewer people object. Can anyone see any reason whatsoever for the violent treatment of this woman, who at worst is guilty of conspiracy to illegally export some telephones?

  • by bondsbw (888959) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:24AM (#42273339)

    Wait, I take that back. I didn't notice there were more pages to the story.

    The taser wasn't excessive. She clearly resisted arrest for several minutes, and she had been told not to come back to the store on a previous occasion. Department policy allowed for the taser in that situation.

    But of course:

    "She was scared, she didn't understand," said John Hugo, who said he was Li's fiance'. "I was outraged. You go into a store, and you end up getting brutalized by the police.

  • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:27AM (#42273395) Journal

    Police are now so badly trained and so out of shape they can't even handle a 44 year-old, 80 pound Chinese woman, they have to resort to high tech weaponry.

    You seem to be operating under the assumption that using 'pain compliance' tools on people weaker than they are, with minimal chances of any significant personal consequences, is something that cops are trying to avoid...

  • by Z00L00K (682162) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:27AM (#42273397) Homepage

    And the reality is that the law is obsolete - cryptography isn't best just because it's built in the US.

    What this proves is that Apple is jacking up the price and availability more on some markets than other.

  • Inflammatory Title (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:28AM (#42273409)

    She wasn't tased for trying to buy too many iPhones. She was tased for resisting arrest after refusing to leave private property. I'm pretty sure "get out!" with a finger pointed to the door is near universal language. When it's suggested by men in uniforms carrying badges and guns, you'd have to be a full-on nitwit to miss the picture.

    You can claim it was the result of "failure to communicate", but you can't expect officers in Nashua, NH to speak Mandarin. If you can't figure out that resisting arrest isn't a good idea, that's on you. Tasing her likely prevented further serious injury of the woman and/or the officers.

  • by jedidiah (1196) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:29AM (#42273441) Homepage

    > Damn right! Who needs stupid things like laws, anyway? Keep raging against the machine, brah!

    Yes. Joining "subversives" like John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.

  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:32AM (#42273501) Journal

    She clearly resisted arrest for several minutes,

    So a small, middle aged woman managed to resist arrest for several minutes? Wow. Those cops should be ashamed of themselves. Really, how did cops survive 10 years ago? Did they all get sound ass kickings from tiny middle aged women?

    Seriously, if you can't arrest someone like that without a taser, then you're so badly trained that you should not be allowed out on the street.

  • Re:Title Is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Half-pint HAL (718102) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:32AM (#42273511)
    The "authorities"? I thought the police department's motto was "to protect and to serve". They are not authorities. They are certainly not judge, jury and executioner. Visiting multi-volt torture on someone already under their control who hasn't even committed any criminal act is just not cricket....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:36AM (#42273585)

    Disagree.

    The article describes how, in effect, if there were less people around they would have pepper sprayed her. Police are increasingly using violence as "compliance tools". It is the equivalent of beating someone with a club, but because it is less visual, people don't catch on to how brutal it is.

    I don't care if she was surly or not. It's trespassing at best, some federal offense that local townie cops have no business enforcing at worst. When did we go from being a country that asked "who the F are you to tell me to do X" of cops, to kowtowing to their every demand.

  • by jkrise (535370) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:37AM (#42273609) Journal

    buying iPhones for cash, then reselling them.

    Hmmm.. makes perfect sense. Addiction to iThings very similar to addiction to drugs. Both are equally craved; largely empty and useless... they give you a 'kick' for a while, and then you feel wistful and want something slightly better for which you are ready to part with loads of cash for no reason in particular.She must be sent to a de-addiction center to help recover from the fruity company craze.

  • by jtnix (173853) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:45AM (#42273775) Homepage

    Umm, we DO live in a police state as evidenced by this and thousands of other civil rights violations that happen daily in this country.

    No one seems to want to acknowledge this, though.

  • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:46AM (#42273809) Homepage

    I remember when tasers were first deployed. They assured us they would only be used for self defense and would absolutely never be used as any sort of 'compliance tool'.

    I guess that slope was too slippery for them.

  • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fche (36607) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:47AM (#42273833)

    "[manhandling] would have caused a hell of a lot more long-term injury to her than simply getting tazed would."

    It's not as though anyone has died from being tazed before.

    Oh wait.

  • Re:This just in... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by abigsmurf (919188) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:48AM (#42273845)
    The problem isn't that they can't handle a small woman, it's that they can't subdue her in a way that doesn't risk injuring her. Couldn't hear the video but it looks like she was thrashing around even when held on the floor. Very easy for her to slam her head against the floor when struggling or to twist around in a way that puts her arm at risk of dislocating or breaking.
  • by gig (78408) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:56AM (#42273999)

    Only in a police state like the US could people be in such denial about being in a police state.

    Something like 25% of the world's cops and soldiers are in the US. And 50% of the weapons. The US is the ultimate police state.

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @11:58AM (#42274031) Homepage

    Calling the police/security is reasonable. Using physical/electrical violence isn't.

    No matter how little English she speaks she must understand a repeated "no" combined with a gesture towards the door.

  • by runeghost (2509522) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:01PM (#42274083)

    "a woman that doesn't under stand how to act in a civilized society"

    By which you mean what, exactly? Failing to obey her corporate masters instantly and without question?

  • by operagost (62405) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:02PM (#42274097) Homepage Journal

    The store is private property. You're not entitled to stand in there and disrupt their business in such a manner, any more than if someone stood by you at your workplace and shouted at you, or went to your house and shouted at you in your living room.

    You've set up a straw man, because it's reasonable to deduce from the evidence that the Apple store called police to get her to leave, not to "enforce" an "arbitrary sale limit rule". You don't know whether it's arbitrary, for one. I can think of several specific reasons for such a rule: scalping, hoarding, and the aforementioned export regulations. If someone doesn't want to do business with you-- save for obvious violations of the Civil Rights Act-- they don't have to. And you don't have to shop there. And you can picket the store while standing on public property, but not while on private property.

  • by PTBarnum (233319) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:05PM (#42274143)

    The police don't care how many iphones she wanted to buy. The store owner didn't like it, and ordered her out of the store. The police were enforcing the store's right to remove someone from the store's property.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:10PM (#42274225)

    You sir are either an idiot or willfully ignorant. Tasing is not an improvement, previous practice in these types of situations was to firmly and gentley restrain and I'm freaking sorry that you don't understand how easy it is for a healthy police officer to restrain an 80 pound 44 year old woman. Baton chokeholds and other similar measures were and still are used for violent resisters.

  • by frosty_tsm (933163) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:11PM (#42274231)

    Not really relevant. A store doesn't have to sell you multiple copies of something. You can't take the store hostage to force them to sell you more.

    And the proper response to this is to taser her.

  • by frosty_tsm (933163) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:13PM (#42274281)

    That is totally irrelevant here. Only a few nations are on the list of "rogue states" that you can't export cryptography tools to, and China is obviously not one of them

    Which isn't exactly true. While the iPhone is classified 5A992 and OK to export to CN, 5A00* items are restricted from export to CN without a license or exception.

    What if China were to, I don't know, just not export the 5A00* to the US in the first place? It was built there.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:16PM (#42274339)

    And so they decided to use a weapon on her instead of simply handcuffing her and removing her LIKE NORMAL.

  • by sribe (304414) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:17PM (#42274341)

    You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.

    No, they tasered her because she did something perfectly illegal--refusing to leave private property when asked to do so. They didn't give a damn about (indeed, probably do not even know about) the arcana of encryption export controls.

  • Re:This just in... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Chibinium (1596211) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:17PM (#42274345)
    Cost of ziptying her hands behind her back, and princess carrying her to the security office: A dime, plus a donut.

    Sexual harassment lawsuit from doing the same thing: $100,000

    Tasing her: $350 for unit, $25 per shot

    The police did the most economical thing, given the forces at play. If there was no risk of litigation, the situation could've been resolved more cheaply. While the police attempted a Persuasion check, her Bluff was too strong and they resorted to more direct means of taking her out of the area.

  • by netscan (1028690) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:17PM (#42274347)

    What if China were to, I don't know, just not export the 5A00* to the US in the first place? It was built there.

    Nobody ever said laws had to be sane :)

  • by Nadaka (224565) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:17PM (#42274349)

    violence is only moral when used to prevent violence.

    The police used violence without that threat and are in the wrong.

  • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HaZardman27 (1521119) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:18PM (#42274361)
    I have some police training from when I was in the military, and with it, training on the use of force. Use of a taser or pepper spray should be limited to subduing threatening individuals where lethal force is not necessary. The question you should ask yourself first is "Is this person going to harm myself or someone else without much risk of fatality?". If you can answer "yes" to that, then it's permissible to use a taser. These cops are assholes and should be held responsible for their abuse, and anyone in their chain of command who is covering for them should receive at least the same punishment. As long as we allow cops the indiscriminate use of weapons like tasers and pepper spray to subdue non-threatening citizens, this is only going to get worse.
  • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:19PM (#42274367)
    You can resist arrest in many ways, without being overtly threatening. Not walking with the officer (standing your ground), straining against their hold, running away, going limp... None of them are compliance with their orders to "get into the vehicle, please mind your head sir / ma'am." I'm not saying someone should be tased for not marching themselves into a cell, but when it's been going on for many minutes and the detainee is being particularly belligerent, there are only so many avenues down which to proceed. Back in the day, it was a billy club to the skull, pepper spray, or gunpoint. Which would you prefer?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:21PM (#42274407)
    You might be shocked to learn this is the new normal
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:21PM (#42274425)

    The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.

    Having intent to export is illegal. Having a plausible reason to believe that someone is disturbing the peace (which she did) or having a plausible reason to believe she intended to export (which she admitted) are both illegal and subjects you to arrest. Furthermore not calling the police when you have a suspicion that someone is purchasing a regulated item for export makes you an accomplice in the crime itself should it be committed. The Apple personnel did exactly what the law requires them to. The police did exactly as the law requires them to.

    As far as resisting arrest- I am a man, if I made it out without broken bones and several felonies tacked on I would be grateful.

  • by Chrisje (471362) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:23PM (#42274447)

    Typically you don't need to taser the hell out of someone to escort them from the premises.

    Specifically when it's a woman. You might call me old fashioned or sexist here, but where I'm from we get taught not to use violence against women.

  • by _Ludwig (86077) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:23PM (#42274449) Journal

    Yeah, I'm sure Apple was on the phone with the Nashua police commisioner.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:25PM (#42274477)

    especially a female who appears much less powerful than the officers holding her down in the video.

    I take offense to that remark. I am a feminist. She deserves to be treated to the same brutality as any man.

  • Taser = Punishment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twmcneil (942300) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:34PM (#42274639)
    To anyone that still believes all that "Protect and Serve" shit, tasers are primarily and overwhelmingly used by LEOs as punishment. They are not used to protect anyone. If you do not do exactly as the officer says, no matter how unfair it may seem, you will be tasered. It is immediate punishment administered without judicial review. Plus, it relieves a lot of frustration for the cop.

    So let's all stop pretending now that use of a taser is anything legal or moral, it's a circumvention of judicial review, denial of individual rights and a travesty of justice. Tasers should be outlawed or their use outside of life threatening situations should be cause for immediate dismissal of the offending officer. Any other course of action is merely inviting a Judge Dredd type of future.
  • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:48PM (#42274887) Homepage

    If it was my house and I was threatened, sure.

    This was a public store in a shopping mall and nobody's life was in danger.

  • by jackbird (721605) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:51PM (#42274947)

    Um, that's not what the cops are supposed to do when someone does that. They're supposed to arrest them for trespassing. The taser is supposed to be a last resort before/instead of using a firearm.

  • by Qwavel (733416) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @12:55PM (#42275045)

    "Specifically when it's a woman. You might call me old fashioned or sexist here, but where I'm from we get taught not to use violence against women."

    Where I'm from we get taught not use violence against people.

    You should only used violence when faced with someone who is going to do physical harm to you or others, whether male or female.

  • by 1s44c (552956) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:00PM (#42275131)

    For the record: Yes, failing to follow the orders of police in the US is a good way to come in close contact with a taser or baton, fact of life.

    So you have these rulers who wander around giving out arbitrary commands to the proles. The rulers pretend to be following some 'law' but really they are above most laws and only have to follow their own loose interpretation of some written law. They meet any perceived challenge to their authority with mild to extreme violence often involving electrical torture devices.

    Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

  • by fredprado (2569351) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:06PM (#42275245)
    Yes, because a single woman can't be easily dominated by a group of cops without resorting to electric shocks or clubs.
  • by RearNakedChoke (1102093) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:10PM (#42275331)

    You're missing the point. The police tastered this person because she did something perfectly legal, which is to say, buy iPhones. She may or may not have had an intent to later export them, which would be illegal-- but this is no excuse for their actions.

    No, they tasered her because she did something perfectly illegal--refusing to leave private property when asked to do so. They didn't give a damn about (indeed, probably do not even know about) the arcana of encryption export controls.

    I have to admit I'm a bit divided on this. On the one hand, I do believe she was probably intentionally being obtuse and refusing to comply. On the other hand, tasering for every mildly difficult or confrontational situation is ridiculous.

    I think every time an officer uses a taser on someone, the officer should receive a taser shot 2x - just to make him evaluate whether the taser is really necessary in a situation.

  • by Belial6 (794905) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:19PM (#42275467)
    The police did NOT do exactly as they were supposed to do. The teaser is a replacement for shooting someone. It should never be used unless the alternative is to shoot them with a bullet. There is nothing in this story that indicates the threat to life and limb had risen to that level. The police used massivley excessive force in this case.
  • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:19PM (#42275485)
    There is something wrong when a police officer cannot wrap an 85 lb woman in a bear hug and just hold her until she realizes that continuing to struggle is going to get her nowhere. The key thing is a lack of patience and the mistaken belief that tasers are non-lethal. A taser should only be used in a situation where an officer would use a gun if necessary but would rather not. If shooting the suspect is not justified, then neither is using a taser. So, would the officers have been justified in shooting this woman?
  • by theshowmecanuck (703852) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:28PM (#42275651) Journal
    FTFY: Selling all your stock to one woman who obviously doesn't need $16,000.00 worth of phones and turning away all other customers who want to buy an iPhone (and will slag your store as useless to their friends because, 'what kind of iPhone store doesn't have iPhones?') and possibly a bunch of accessories AND any return business they might provide IS bad for business.
  • by Dunbal (464142) * on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:31PM (#42275729)
    Yeah god forbid those iPhones made in China end up back in, er, China...
  • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by unkiereamus (1061340) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:32PM (#42275749)

    It doesn't matter with cops (with tasers). Me being 5.11 and upset will simply get me pinned to the floor hit with a nightstick, ZAPPED and handcuffed just for being emotional about an issue in front of them. I.E I'm upset therefore it's justification to assault me. Being tall and athletic means gives grounds for 5 bouncers in a nightclub to attack me even if I'm not irate but cheerful and drunk (they legally classify it as disorderly and label me a potential threat).

    I'm 6'8 and weigh in at about 300lbs, of which probably about 40lbs of it is fat. I've never been asked to leave a bar, let alone been approached by a bouncer or five. In the times that I've been confronted with cops, I've never had one draw his handcuffs, nightstick or taser, let alone try to use one of them on me. If you have, perhaps the problem here isn't your size, it's your attitude.

  • by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:33PM (#42275761)

    Cash transactions at banks over $10,000 are subject to special reporting requirements, thanks largely to the War on Drugs. It wouldn't surprise me if trying to make any kind of cash transaction for $16K draws unwanted attention in the current police state environment.

    Obviously, she was taking the money she earned selling drugs, and laundering it by buying iPhones for cash, then reselling them. Makes perfect sense to a cop, who has been trained to assume that EVERYBODY is a criminal....

    You need to come up for air more often. The war on drugs is so 1990's. It's all about terrorists now. We all know she was buying the phones for Al-Qaida. They probably figured out that taping an iPhone to a string attached to a trigger is a 99% reliable way to detonate a bomb. After all, what American could resist picking up a shiny new iPhone.

    I think it's more likely that if you get enough of them close together you can achieve critical mass. It's obviously another attempt by Iran to build a boomer.

  • Re:This just in... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:47PM (#42276013)

    iPhones are MADE in China for fucks sake. So they made them there, shipped them all the way here, and then we say "don't export these Chinese made gadgets back to the country where they were made?!?" Any export restrictions involved here are about pricing things differently in different markets. By being their own store, Apple can maximize profits but choosing where and for how much they sell their product without fear of competition... unless people start buying iPhones in one market and moving them to another... so they lobby congress to ban exports of their own product, even though they sell the same product in both markets. I for one hope buying apple products continues this trend of Tazzering, they get what they deserve.

  • Sexist nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjbe (173966) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @01:54PM (#42276139)

    You might call me old fashioned or sexist here, but where I'm from we get taught not to use violence against women.

    Ok, you are old fashioned and sexist. How about not using violence against anyone? You're basically implying that it is acceptable to use violence against men but not women. Gender should play NO role in this discussion whatsoever. Men are no more deserving of violence than women.

  • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @02:35PM (#42276947) Homepage

    it becomes trespassing past that point

    Nitpicking over the interpretation of 'trespass' aside, don't you think common sense could have prevailed? I'm sure two big policemen could have made the store managers intentions clear then managed to frog-march her out of the store without resorting to this.

  • by pla (258480) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @02:53PM (#42277241) Journal
    One time a woman gets tasered and you go with the assumption that it wasn't a proper response. I have to ask, did you even RTFA and do any basic research or are you just reacting to the ridiculously sensationalist headline?

    Well, when they already have her pinned to the ground - Damn straight "it wasn't a proper response"!

    Cuff her and drag her to the car if she won't walk, but at the point they already have their suspect subdued, tazing someone amounts to nothing less than torturing them out of petty vindictiveness.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13, 2012 @03:13PM (#42277571)

    A tazer is not a replacement for shooting someone. A tazer is a replacement for clubbing someone with a nightstick or baton. Shooting someone with a firearm is deadly force, the intention is to definitively stop the subject - killing them if necessary. The purpose of a tazer or baton is to subdue an aggressive individual that will not comply with verbal instructions. Tasers are (in theory, some exceptions) non-lethal. And unlike the traditional nightstick, they won't generally break your bones or cause skull injuries when they are used on you. Personally, I'd much rather be tazed than beaten with a stick. But then, I'd have also left the store when refused service.

  • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc@@@carpanet...net> on Thursday December 13, 2012 @03:13PM (#42277573) Homepage

    > If someone was trespassing on your property and refused to leave, you'd be justified in tasering
    > them too.

    Actually, I live in a state where I would be required to escape, if able. I would have no justification of tasering them.

    Now personally, i think thats silly, but, I still think the police went overboard. Tasers were developed and issued as an alternative to shooting and killing, not talking and persueding. Unless they were in danger to the point of being justified using lethal force, then I don't see how they were justified in using less lethal force (which can be lethal or do serious harm, depending on the circumstances) by her refusal to leave when they would like her to.

    Annoyance and disrespect for authority are not physically threatening to anyone. These abusers should be stripped of their badges and given the opportunity to go work in a field where they can afford to be less professional without endangering the public.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @03:14PM (#42277585)

    I don't believe for one second it was lack of understanding. There was on policeman dealing with her for 15 minutes before the second arrived and the resisting arrest/tazering incident happened.

    You don't have to understand the language to know when a policeman guides you to the door, you have to leave. To resist for 15 minutes, she was being more than stubborn.

    I still don't think she should have been tazered though.

  • by BasilBrush (643681) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @03:29PM (#42277869)

    Of course she could. And I think she should be restrained without tasers.

    However, lets not pretend it's without risk of injury to the policemen. Policemen are kicked and bitten by women resisting arrest every day.

  • by arth1 (260657) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @04:06PM (#42278551) Homepage Journal

    Yes, if she adamantly refuses to leave.

    If someone was trespassing on your property and refused to leave, you'd be justified in tasering them too.

    Taser is meant to be a last resort weapon, not a first restort. It's a milder alternative to shooting, not a high tech replacement for subduing with less severe means.
    People die from being tasered. Even a nightstick is less severe. And nets. Not to mention all the other options, like just, you know, holding the lady, which two trained policemen should be perfectly capable of doing.

    When people think it's ok to use a last resort weapon as a primary response, there's something seriously wrong with the society.

  • by ultranova (717540) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @04:24PM (#42278863)

    And the proper response to this is to taser her.

    No, the proper response is to call the cops, which the store did. The police then proceeded to taze her, which may or may not have been excessive but is not the store's or Apple's fault either way. Or at least that's what I got from the summary.

  • by Hatta (162192) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @04:40PM (#42279103) Journal

    And unlike the traditional nightstick, they won't generally break your bones or cause skull injuries when they are used on you.

    Try dropping your skull 5.5ft onto concrete and get back to me on that. Tasers do not give you a chance to break your fall. I'd rather get a couple broken bones than risk ventricular fibrillation or a grand mal seizure. VF will kill you out right, and one grand-mal seizure significantly increases your risk of future seizures.

    Tasers aren't safe just because Taser International says so.

  • by reboot246 (623534) on Thursday December 13, 2012 @07:16PM (#42281643) Homepage
    If two cops can't subdue a small Asian woman without tasering her, then the department should consider firing them. They're not worthy of the title "police officer".

    God forbid they ever have to go up against a grown man.

The first version always gets thrown away.

Working...