Sadly these are just a few of hundreds of videos depicting extremely questionable use of Tasers.
Nasty, nasty weapon that has no place in civilised society.
We all know the police have a very hard job to do, but tasering people has become far too lazy an option.

regards

g.man

Is the TASER potentially life-threatening to people who have heart problems or other similar medical conditions?  Regardless, it's pretty brutal, even when used responsibly.  Is there really not a safer yet effective way to subdue a potentially dangerous suspect?

Striking someone on a leg with a baton is far, far less dangerous than zapping them with a TASER, isn't it?

All the vids are a mixed bag. And you also have to take into account this is the US, with guns everywhere.
Dyna's one is ambiguous. The man is clearly resisting arrest, but then without the full context it is unclear whether that arrest is legal at all. It appears that the cop is doing what some police do and that is try to impose their authority no matter the situation and is possibly refusing to back down. The video implies the cop is throwing his jurisdictional weight around and when it is pointed out to him that he can't demand ID he escalates the situation when he should maybe just walk away.
But this is speculation.

G's first one is the misplaced questioning of authority in the wrong situation. The woman is told to stay in the car, so she gets out, she is then told to get out of the car and she stays in.
When a policeman stops you for doing something wrong and asks you to do something, then you do it. Doing the exact opposite will end badly. Especially in the US where cops are under constant threat of being shot at roadside stops. Granted she is a mother with children in the car and she is highly unlikely to pull out a AK and hose him down but it is the US after all, better to be safe than sorry.

G's second IMO is quite clear cut, the woman is in the process of being arrested (handcuffs on), she has obviously bolted, so she is resisting arrest, the cop has choices, chase her down (he looks quite porky so that wont go well), shoot her or taser her. He possibly picked the right one but unfortunately it ended badly. It could've ended equally as bad if he rugby tackled her and she smashed her head to the ground.

As for his last this one does look heavy handed, we don't hear the exchange while the camera is in the shop so anything could be happening then. At a guess I would say he was being told to lie down on the floor (the cops lack of body language only makes this a guess - as that's how arrests usually go) and the guy was unable to comprehend the instructions. The subsequent tasering looks harsh.


TLDR
Dynas = Tasering? possibly. justified arrest? Not in my opinion.

G's 1) = Tasering? No. Woman doing just about everything wrong? Hell yes.
2) = Tasering? Yes. Resisting arrest? Yes. Unfortunate accident that could've happened anyway when a uber fat cop tackles her? Yes.
3) = Tasering? No. Should the cop have taken more time to assess the situation? Yes. But hey it is the US, with weirdos and crazies and drug addicts etc...

The thing to remember is that in all but one of these vids, all the people involved on both sides get to go home afterwards and not to the morgue.

igorgetmeabrain wrote:

adkm1979 wrote:

Getting one good, effective strike in on the leg, yes.  However, as the Profiled Offender Behaviour moves up the scale, so does the Reasonable Officer Response, and that includes a strike to the head if required.

I didn't realise you were allowed to hit people on the head with batons.

I would guess the more of a danger to her/him/the public the subject is then the more force a policeman can use to stop them - that's why we have armed response units after all.
Seems sensible.

MTV yet again making a show that I think is complete dogshit but which I can't veer my head away from.

Not on your life.  I don't know if you've thought about how you'd effectively hit the solar plexus with a friction lock baton to guarantee success, and then factor in the chemical cocktail going around my body at that point.  The likelihood of me not getting an effective strike and dying shortly afterwards is pretty high.  I'll go for the head, thanks.

pantyfire wrote:

All the vids are a mixed bag. And you also have to take into account this is the US, with guns everywhere. Dyna's one is ambiguous. The man is clearly resisting arrest, but then without the full context it is unclear whether that arrest is legal at all.

To be honest, I posted the video, because I didn't think they had a legitimate reason to stop the dude in the first place, but once they asked him for ID... Well... I'd have handed over my ID. I've got nothing to hide. Some do. 
Others don't, but refuse to give out those details on principle. And when no crime has taken place, that's a legal right, no?

But looking at that situation, those weapons should not have been drawn at all.

Dude - "Have I committed a crime?"
Poh-leece - "No sir."

Those policemen should have explained their right (if any) to his ID...

Then they should have gone all Rodney King on his shit...

Assume away.  I'm an OST Instructor.  Cops get a one day refresher every year.  That includes an input on SPELS (think pared down First Aid) and covering everything from basic stance, through breakaway techniques and baton strikes, use of leg restraints, CS, the different roles in moving violent custodies into a cell and a whole lot more.  Anything up to about 25 people in the class, and I have to make sure they're up to speed on all the techniques.  In one day.  Even if all cops were the special defence gurus that take the lead roles in films, it's a lot to get through in a day.

Cops are just normal people, Igor.  What you are expecting can only be achieved with considerable natural talent and years of training.  Since cops aren't the type of people to get into fights every Friday night, that limits the practice.  Even the ones who do additional training (a girl on my last team is really good at Tae Kwon Do) recognise that when two people are moving about in a fight, and the adrenaline is pumping, precise motor skills are difficult, and if they are precise, making them effective is even more difficult.

You're expectations are pretty wildly unrealistic, I'm afraid.

Bollockoff wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Others don't, but refuse to give out those details on principle. And when no crime has taken place, that's a legal right, no?

I've never understood that mindset. Just hand over the ID for a few brief seconds and be on your merry way. "Exercising" ones rights can get to ridiculous levels with some people for no good reason.

That's also how I've been raised, but doesn't mean we should have to whenever asked.
Like if you hadn't committed a crime, but was asked to produce a DNA sample...

Why would you?

adkm1979 wrote:

Cops are just normal people, Igor.

Well... 

I seriously hope we ain't taking you for a model, buddy... 

dynamiteReady wrote:

And when no crime has taken place, that's a legal right, no? But looking at that situation, those weapons should not have been drawn at all. Dude - "Have I committed a crime?" Poh-leece - "No sir." Those policemen should have explained their right (if any) to his ID... Then they should have gone all Rodney King on his shit...

The Police officer at the start explains that there has been an infraction.  Now, over the pond they get quite uppity about whether something is a crime, an offence, a misdemeanour or an infraction.  I wouldn't begin to guess at what has happened in the build up, because we don't know.  We can't pass comment on whether or not they have a legal power to see the man's ID.  From what little I can garner from the dialogue, if it was over here we would have that power.

It's worth noting a couple of things.  The first is that, regardless of how legal you think an arrest is, if you resist it you will be met with greater force in order to effect that arrest.  Debating the legality of the arrest is for your solicitor.  If you fight, you won't be the first person to find the court dropping the initial charges, and just finding you guilty of resisting arrest.

The second thing is that there are very few laws or pieces of legislation in the UK that require a Police officer to name said piece of legislation when enforcing it.  It's generally good practice to at least know the act when asked, but not getting an answer doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

Maybe seems unfair, but that's life.

Bollockoff wrote:

MTV yet again making a show that I think is complete dogshit but which I can't veer my head away from.

My gosh!

If I glean all that I can from these two vids, I'll need to hire a vet to help me take care of all the pussy! 8 )

...

I'll get me coat...

I'd rather be tasered than gassed again, I had 4 good bursts to the face from about 3" away and I wouldn't describe it as comfortable, I couldn't open my eyes for a good 30-45 minutes and every time I tried it was agony. The worst thing was that when I washed in the morning it hurt all over again whereas getting tasered only smarts for a few seconds...

Moto70 wrote:

I'd rather be tasered than gassed again, I had 4 good bursts to the face from about 3" away and I wouldn't describe it as comfortable, I couldn't open my eyes for a good 30-45 minutes and every time I tried it was agony. The worst thing was that when I washed in the morning it hurt all over again whereas getting tasered only smarts for a few seconds...

You in the habit of being gassed/tasered?