Man sodomized by police tazar- Plans to Sue

[JackLuis]

Damn! that must have Hurt!

 

[sr71plt]

Well, since what your slug claimed didn't happen, that part didn't hurt him at all.

 

[3113]

It is misleading and a bit confusing. He wasn't zapped in the ass, it seems that the police jerked down his pants and shoved the taser up between his butt cheeks. How far up it was shoved is unclear.

On the one hand, they're saying that it isn't against the rules to threaten to taser a person's buttocks--which isn't the same as threatening to sodomize the person with a taser or, as was the actual case, threatening to taser the guy's balls. On the other hand, there is a reference there at the end suggesting that the taser may not have stayed external.

I'm wondering if the description of sodomy is accurate here. While I'm sure one could, er, insert this somewhat, doing so wouldn't necessarily keep the culprit still as requested. It does look like it would hurt even if you didn't zap them with it.

http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2008/03-21/taser27b_400.jpg

 

[ms.read]

ouch on so many levels.

 

[Handley_Page]

Makes your eyes water just thinking about it.

 

[Liar]

On the one hand, they're saying that it isn't against the rules to threaten to taser a person's buttocks--which isn't the same as threatening to sodomize the person with a taser or, as was the actual case, threatening to taser the guy's balls. On the other hand, there is a reference there at the end suggesting that the taser may not have stayed external.

Either way, that recordong seems pretty unambigous.

Officer #3: Now do you feel this in your balls?
Complainant: I do, sir. I’m not going to move. I’m not gonna move.
Officer #3 Now I’m gonna tase your balls if you move again.

Was it nessecary to go for the anus and testicles in order to subdue the guy? If not (and I can't imagine how it could be), I think it's a pretty obvious case of sexual harassment and/or molestation. Imagine it was a woman, and a cop (male or female) had threatened to tase her vagina.

 

[Guest]

It is misleading and a bit confusing. He wasn't zapped in the ass, it seems that the police jerked down his pants and shoved the taser up between his butt cheeks. How far up it was shoved is unclear.

On the one hand, they're saying that it isn't against the rules to threaten to taser a person's buttocks--which isn't the same as threatening to sodomize the person with a taser or, as was the actual case, threatening to taser the guy's balls. On the other hand, there is a reference there at the end suggesting that the taser may not have stayed external.

I'm wondering if the description of sodomy is accurate here. While I'm sure one could, er, insert this somewhat, doing so wouldn't necessarily keep the culprit still as requested. It does look like it would hurt even if you didn't zap them with it.

http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2008/03-21/taser27b_400.jpg

Since the individual in question was face down on the floor, it seems unlikely that the officers lowered his pants unless he was wearing sweats or something similar. (This presupposes that he was wearing pants at all at the time.) Besides, he'd already been Tased once by that point and I seriously doubt that pressing the Taser against bare skin would have been necessary to make the point again.

What truly bothers me about this story is not the officer's statements but the fact that no one has commented on how ridiculous the "complainant's" story is. Multiple officers responded to a domestic disturbance call but "failed to identify themselves as police officers;" are we to assume that they were all in plain clothes? Extremely unlikely.

The complainant asumed that these individuals were "a person coming to “beat him up,” physically blocked the doorway and refused to allow them entry.

Uh-huh.

Sounds like interfering with an officer in the performance of his duty and disobeying an order from an officer; after all, they were duty-bound to investigate the complaint and certainly couldn't do that from the porch. And as far as I know, domestic disturbance calls have the highest potential for officer injury. They're trained not to take chances in those situations.

Perhaps the complainant in this case was upset, drunk, high, or all three; I neither know nor care. I'll leave it to the Boise PD to discipline the officer in question. The entire story from the "complainant's" side stinks to high heavens, IMO, and I have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

Let's talk citizen's responsibilities while we're talking citizen's rights, eh?
It is not lawful to resist arrest in this country, to interfere with an officer in the performance of his/her duties, or to disobey an order given by an officer in the perfomance of his/her duty.

 

[3113]

Since the individual in question was face down on the floor, it seems unlikely that the officers lowered his pants unless he was wearing sweats or something similar. (This presupposes that he was wearing pants at all at the time.)

I agree that I was confused about that as well and made that assumption--but however ridiculous the complainant's story, there's an audio recording of what the officer said he was doing. Namely:

Officer #3: Now do you feel this in your balls?
Complainant: I do, sir. I’m not going to move. I’m not gonna move.
Officer #3 Now I’m gonna tase your balls if you move again.
A minute later, this exchange occurred:
Officer #3: Okay, I’m gonna take this Taser out of your asshole now. Are you going to fight with me?

I can agree that he might have had pants on if the transcript just read about the taser being pressed to his balls--but "Take this taser out of your asshole"? Sounds like it got between his naked cheeks somehow there.

And however much trouble this guy was, why, if he was on the floor at that point, perfectly still, and obeying the officer did the officer need to threaten to taster his balls?

He may be a scumball who deserves no sympathy, but that doesn't let the officer off the hook for unprofessional behavior.

 

[Liar]

What truly bothers me about this story is not the officer's statements but the fact that no one has commented on how ridiculous the "complainant's" story is. Multiple officers responded to a domestic disturbance call but "failed to identify themselves as police officers;" are we to assume that they were all in plain clothes? Extremely unlikely.

My guess is that the complaintant or whatever we want to call him, didn't precisely act like a model citizen. Inteferring, resisting arrest, and being a PITA. And was therefore delat with accordingly. Happens all the time. Yawn.

It's what happend after that that makes it a news-worthy story. After he'd been initially tasered and pinned to the ground, what seems to have happened doesn't put the officer in the best of light. We don't need the guy's version of that. We have, as pointed out, direct and pretty explicit audio recordings.

By the way, why are there audio recordings? Is that something the police themselves do, of was this some passer-by with a cell phone?

 

[JackLuis]

I think it was the reporter who "inflated" the headline, to get published. It is hard to say what transpired before the recording, (transcription?) starts, so I'll leave judgment to the law. I mean even scumbags have rights.

 

[SweetWitch]

Kinda makes me wonder what the guy did that set the cops off. The article says it was domestic violence call. I know several cops who take that one to heart. When they see or hear of an abused child, or a child who is forced to witness his mother being abused, they tend to get a little upset.

Did this person deserve what happened? Not my call to make, but the cops didn't act with true professionalism. Cops are human, though. Some are power-mad mongrels, while others are truly trying to make a difference. It's no different from any other profession--you got good ones and you got bad ones. One thing's for certain: They all have their breaking point.