The new policy creates a stricter standard and requires that the suspect "pose an immediate threat of physical injury before firing a Taser is appropriate."[LINK]
...previous department policy, which permited Taser use when suspects are "actively resisting," which includes such actions as "tensing" or "bracing" to resist arrest.
Do I agree with this change?
That's almost a stupid question.
I've stated more than once that if the police are under ACTUAL (not imagined) "...immediate threat of physical injury...", then I don't care what they have to do to protect themselves (hopefully proportional to the magnitude of the ACTUAL threat). I've even stated that I don't care if they are forced to "use a fricken flame-thrower", so long as the resultant burnt humans are not blamed on 'Spontaneous Human Combustion'.
This new policy, assuming it is implemented honestly, and assuming that Palo Alto had the usual rate of taser overuse, should result in a reduction in taser use of about 90% or so (roughly). Might be 75%, might be 97%. but it SHOULD be significant. That's what happened in BC (about 90% reduction).
One last question: What naive moron (or, more likely, Church of Taser infiltrator within the department) cut-and-paste the previous rights-violating, unconstitutional, electro-torture advising Palo Alto Taser Overuse Policy directly from Taser International's propaganda?
Is he allowed a clean getaway? Even though "his" defective policy led directly to multiple instances of civil rights violations?
Is that okay with you?
Hey, I'm just asking!
PS: Those whose rights were violated should seek legal advice. Might be some compensation available (hint: 6-figures minimum).