Police use taser on unruly mother at school after her son is arrested

[mssheila]

Here is the city of Madison Press Release on the incident. I can't seem to link it to the actual page, so you'll see a list of incidents. Go to the 11th link down, incident number 2006-135337 (http://www.cityofmadison.com/wsc/pdpress.wsc/ReleaseDetails.html?releaseNum=8341&highlightText=). It's listed as a "Disturbance" on 11/8/06
http://www.cityofmadison.com/wsc/pdpress.wsc/pdpressrelease

a 17-year-old male subject, who was not a student of the school, had been taken into custody by the ERO and was being cited/released on a municipal violation of possessing tobacco products. Jacquelyn L. Lightfoot (parent of the 17-year-old male) was made aware of the arrest scenario and responded to Memorial High School. Lightfoot made her way to the office of the ERO and began to verbally attack the officer for the police action he was involved in concerning the 17-year-old male.
*snip*
The ERO (Educational Resource officer) was then surrounded by Lightfoot and her two daughters in a confined area, and deeming Lightfoot the greatest threat, a Taser was utilized by the ERO to deescalate this threat to a manageable level. It should be noted that the officer verbalized and used a physical separation technique before using the Taser as his last resort. Jacquelyn L. Lightfoot and her two daughters were all arrested on charges of Disorderly Conduct and Resisting/Obstructing A Police Office

Here is a very short news article on the situation:
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/4602466.html

Because he has prior weapons offenses, the school liaison officer was asked to search him. Police say he was uncooperative, so he was handcuffed.

Police spokesman Howard Payne says Jacquelyn Lightfoot arrived at the school and began swearing, screaming and demanding that her son be released.

Payne says when Lightfoot and her two daughters surrounded the officer and refused to back away, he used his Taser gun on the woman.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````
What in the world makes people think that they can assault a police officer, either verbally or physically? And, on top of that... her two daughters ended up getting arrested for helping the mother try to intimidate the officer by surrounding him and making the situation escalate very quickly. She allows her daughters to speak to the police this way? This is despicable. :behindbar :behindbar

[mssheila]

I forgot to say... This 17 year old kid walks into the school, wanting to register for classes. That sounds great. But because this particular school has a lot of problems with gang activity and weapons in school, the Educational Resource Officer must be very alert and proactive. The officer wants to search him because the kid has a history of weapons violations, the officer knew this. It's the officer's duty to protect the children in the school.

The kid resists the search, and the officer handcuffs him so that he can get the search completed. This kid was NOT even under arrest! He was only being cited with a ticket and released. The handcuffs were only to get the search completed, apparently.

The boy's sister, a 15 year old, calls her mom to tell her of the situation. That all seems like pretty normal reactions from all involved until.... Mom shows up, starts demanding that her son gets uncuffed, and then the mother starts becoming threatening and belligerent. When the officer is trying to arrest her, she becomes out of control and he is forced to use the taser. How scary for her daughters!

Even though it was probably really scary for her kids to see this, she was obviously unconcerned about what her kids were seeing in the first place. She also has her two daughters assist her in trying to intimidate the officer.

What kind of mother is this? She obviously doesn't expect her children to respect adults or police. She clearly encourages them in the type of behavior that got them all arrested that day. What is WRONG with parents like this? I just can't understand it. :sick:

[txsvicki]

So, if the boy was trying to register to attend school, it doesn't make much sense to me to arrest him for having cigarettes. Some alternative schools here allowed teenage kids to go outside and smoke during their breaks and the old geezers who drive the Headstart school buses stand on the other side of their bus, sneakily watching for teachers, and smoke cigarettes. I figure this mom has had some really bad experiences with her kids at school and lives in a cruddy area. The boy was probably being forced to go or go to jail or receive huge fines for not attending school.

[kgeaux]

I gotta tell you, I'd probably go a little ballistic if someone handcuffed a kid of mine UNLESS that kid was under arrest......if the boy did not want to submit to a search, escort him off of school property.

Mom should have handled the situation better, it is always better to difuse a situation rather than ratchet it up a notch or two. She should have calmed the situation down, encouraged her son to submit to the search and helped him to get enrolled.

Lastly, I HATE tasors and I believe they should be used rarely, and surely not in a situation like this. It's getting crazy in USA, where old women and seven year olds can be tased. Surely our police force can come up with alternatives.

[CyberLaw]

Parents lead by example, the child has a history of weapons, refused to be searched, who knows if the next thing that he does it pull out a knife and stab the ERO person.

Then of course I am sure that the daughter was "not unbiased" when she told her Mom, of course her brother could do no wrong. Then the whole family gets into it, the mother "wanted" her own way and used "threatening", verbally abusive tactics to "get what she wanted" because of course her little darling is so hard done by.

Then the boy is handcuffed, the mother and two daughters used intimidating tactics, to "threaten" the officer in a closed space, so lets keep count here, mother, two daughters and one officer.

Gee you think that he may of thought, well I could get hurt. Who knows what this mother was saying.

By the way, there are consequences for your actions, for your own decisions, how you treat other people.

But some people just blame others, accept no responsibility for their actions, it is always the fault of everyone else, they are not to blame.

The Officer was acting in the best interest of every student in the school, he was doing his job to protect other students, so who is to blame here, gee let me think.

If the only way to resolve the situation is to taser the mom, the Officer acted to protect himself, because no amount of logic or "persuasion" is going to "defuse" the situation that could get out of hand very quickly.

Just the fact that this women and her two daughters "surrounded" the Officer is very telling of their intentions.

So if tasering saved the Officer from a possible assault, then he acted in his own defence.

[mssheila]

It's completely lawful, and in the best interest of the entire school, for the officer to put handcuffs on the 17 Y/O in order to search him. The boy had a history of having weapons. It's quite clear to me that this officer knew him (and his rap sheet).

So, he comes back to register at school again, and the ERO wants him searched for the protection of others. I don't know if he had any other reasons. That school has metal detectors, I know for sure, so it's quite possible he set one of them off when he was entering and then refused the search.

My point in posting this is the mothers behavior. What makes people believe that they can threaten others, and condone and incite their children to join in? Let alone a LE officer. I just will NEVER understand why people won't take responsibility. Why didn't she just tell her son to submit to the search? Why not address the boy, not the officer. :confused:

[CyberLaw]

Because if you don't admit responsibility, then you are not at fault, and you protect and convince yourself, as in denial and delusion that everyone else is to blame and you are just such a wonderful person. This is a protection of your personality, because it is always the other person's fault, never yours.

I am sure that this women thought: My son is doing a good thing, he is registering for school, how DARE they "harass" my poor little darling, he did nothing wrong, he is wonderful, he is trying to register for school, and these people are "just picking" on him, therefore I am going to get the whole family to teach these people a lesson, that they cannot pick on my wonderful son.

To admit responsibility, it to admit that you are wrong, and if you think others are wrong, then you act accordingly.

[Jeana (DP)]

Mom needed to keep in her mind that the handcuffing of her son was for his protection as well as the officers' protection. Being in handcuffs doesn't even mean that one is being arrested. Instead of trying to help calm him down and bring the volume down on the situation, she turned the volume up and made things worse. Once the officers have the situation in hand, they'll usually listen to what you've got to say.

[Linda7NJ]

I agree the mother acted horridly, but I am not understanding how the handcuffing went down.....:confused:

If I enter school and want to register for classes and the dude at the counter recognizes me from 2 years ago because I had been arrested for having a concealed weapon at that time....he has the right to handcuff me? Wouldn't I have the option of leaving? :waitasec:

[CyberLaw]

That is if you wanted to leave and did not "act" in the same manner as the Mother. All the young man had to do is "consent" to a search, that is all end of story and then it may have ended happily...........more or less.

If you know the "history" of someone and your job is to protect other kids, and the person does not consent to a search, you don't know if they are armed or not. So to protect yourself, you handcuff him, just so if there is a weapon, it is not pulled out and used on you.

If you search him and find a weapon, then you take it away and call LE.

So yes, I can see why he handcuffed the young man. What was he going to do, say O.K., go to class, when you know he has a history of weapons....I don't think so, you co-operate.

Notice the article says "prior" weapon OFFENCES, as in more then one

[crypto6]

I agree the mother acted horridly, but I am not understanding how the handcuffing went down.....:confused:

If I enter school and want to register for classes and the dude at the counter recognizes me from 2 years ago because I had been arrested for having a concealed weapon at that time....he has the right to handcuff me? Wouldn't I have the option of leaving? :waitasec:

That is the interesting part of this: Obviously, the mother is not going to be anybody's mother-of-the year, but can a 17yo be handcuffed without consent without being arrested?? It seems he refused the handcuffs and was not given the option or made to leave. I agree with kgeaux; I would not be happy with what looks to me like some unlawfully restraining or assaulting my son, LE or not. Also, does this person being a minor bear any on this?

I know that the officer did the right thing by the kids at the school, but is he right under the letter of the law?

RE: Taser use. I hate the things too, especially LE 3:1 to a 130 pound handcuffed man, but this LE’s choices were so limited: too close for pepper spray, too many for a baton, and without the taser his service weapon would be his only choice. Quick, smart thinking on his part defused what could have easily been a shooting. Congrats to him.

[docwho3]

The mother could have quietly announced that she would sue the school and then not attempted to interfere with things. Later if a court determined that boy should not have been subject to the handcuffing and search she could have won damages.

To me this sounds as if the mother possibly has some gang involvement herself and did not want her son searched. Sounds to me as if she encourages his lawless behaviors. That's just my opinion so far.

[CyberLaw]

I would have to have a lot more information re the state laws, local laws, school laws, etc. to determine if the young man was unlawfully handcuffed, I very much doubt that he would have been handcuffed if it was not within the letter of the law.

A school locker can be searched without a warrant, a person detained without charges, I have no idea of the school system in the states.

But I would imagine, that acting in the safety of the entire school, the prior offences, the fact that this was not a law abididng young man, the families behavior, will have a significant bearing on the outcome of any damages.

The simple fact is safe to "assume" given the above, that the young man did have a weapon. Was he not found with smokes,

But I doubt the adults in this case(the normal, no agressive adults) are to blame for the "actions" the first actions by this young man.

According to the article he was being cited/detained for Municipal Violation for possession of smokes.

The young man was "uncooperative" so he was handcuffed, do you think that the ERO could "search" him while he was not in handcuffs. Do you think that the whole school should be allowed to be put at risk, because he was uncooperative. He was not asked to leave as he was already cited and detained. You don't cite someone, give them a pass, then ask them them to leave.

[docwho3]

I would have to have a lot more information re the state laws, local laws, school laws, etc. to determine if the young man was unlawfully handcuffed, I very much doubt that he would have been handcuffed if it was not within the letter of the law. . .To save space I did not quote your entire post. I hope you don't mind.

I agree with your points. Very good post. And even if the mother, in error, believed the school was wrong she could still have acted within the law and took her case to a court to decide. Perhaps her atty.(if she consulted one) later could have explained things to her and it might never even have made it to court. But the way she handled things has only served to make her look foolish and violent herself.

[CyberLaw]

Hey Doc, greeting from the "Great White" North.

A normal person would act in a normal, responsible, civil, lawful, non verbally, non agressive, non intimidating manner.

A norman person may seek legal advice. But I remember cases where "parents" storm a class and assault a teacher, because their child has been consequenced for their behavior.

There have been, and will be a lot more cases like this. Parents showing up at school, and trying to "exert" their personal views, beliefs, acts of intimidation and violence.

It is so much easier to "intimidate" bully, threaten violence, because of course "the little" darlings can do no wrong. it is always the fault of everyone else, everyone else is to blame.

These people have never heard of the words personal responsibility.........

We found smokes in my son's knapsack. We knew he was not smoking. We sat him down and asked him why was he in possession "of illegal smokes". He told us that he sells individual smokes to each student for a dollar. The pack would have cost 10.00. He would have made 25 dollars a 15 dollar profit. We told him "we admire" your "business" spirit, but ah, NO.

Well some parents might think it is O.K, help their child, or beat their kid, or smoke with their kid. So different reactions from different people "depending" on everything about their personality.

[Ang50]

In America, you do not have to consent to a search. This boy did not. Entering a school does not mean that you automatically consent to a search.

When the officer handcuffed the boy, that means he was "in custody". Essentially the officer escalated the situation. Officers with "reasonable suspicion" can stop and frisk a person on the street but they are not allowed to handcuff them while doing so. Officers can also ask people to consent to a search - and people can say no. (I recommend you do so.)

This boy was within his rights as a citizen, and should have been asked to leave the premises unless he consented to the search. I would have been very angry as a parent to see this happen. Additionally, there was probably a significant time lapse between when the daughter called and the mom showed up - so that meant this boy was spending quite a while in cuffs.

Agreed she could have handled it better - but I'm not sure what my reaction would be either...

[docwho3]

Hey Doc, greeting from the "Great White" North. . . Thank you! It is great to hear from you.

. . .A normal person would act in a normal, responsible, civil, lawful, non verbally, non agressive, non intimidating manner.

A norman person may seek legal advice. But I remember cases where "parents" storm a class and assault a teacher, because their child has been consequenced for their behavior.

There have been, and will be a lot more cases like this. Parents showing up at school, and trying to "exert" their personal views, beliefs, acts of intimidation and violence. . .Good points again.

. . .We found smokes in my son's knapsack. We knew he was not smoking. We sat him down and asked him why was he in possession "of illegal smokes". He told us that he sells individual smokes to each student for a dollar. The pack would have cost 10.00. He would have made 25 dollars a 15 dollar profit. We told him "we admire" your "business" spirit, but ah, NO. . . I expect to see him pass up Bill Gates someday. :)

[crypto6]

Do you think that the whole school should be allowed to be put at risk, because he was uncooperative. He was not asked to leave as he was already cited and detained. You don't cite someone, give them a pass, then ask them them to leave.

All your points are legitimate and I agree with them. However, they don't get to the question I'm trying (and failing it seems) to ask. I’m obviously not advocating letting the punk run wild at a school in deference to his personal freedom. My question is more basic and fundamental to our system of government, at least in the States, and can’t be answered with a nod to local law. This is not a particularly good case to discuss this point, because of the circumstances of public safety obviously overriding the Constitutional guarantee of personal freedom that Americans enjoy and because of the status of the offender as a minor. A better case would illustrate this question: Can LE constitutionally handcuff someone, and legitimately claim that person wasn’t under arrest? A lot flows from this, since once someone is arrested, LE is responsible for consequences subsequent to that arrest.; obviously this does not hold if the person is not arrested. Another tack on the same questioning: Is there a place between free and arrested where LE can legally put someone?

Obviously this is quite arcane and most who defend the actions of the LE on the circumstances in this case are not going deeply enough into the question or don’t want to dissect it on this level.
Thoughts??

[mssheila]

I have always thought that LE can handcuff you if you are resisting/obstructing during a lawful search. That's a detainment, not an arrest, if they later decide to let you go.

If this 17 year old was asked to either consent to a search or leave, and he refused to do either, what were the officer's options?

[Dr. Doogie]

...
We found smokes in my son's knapsack. We knew he was not smoking. We sat him down and asked him why was he in possession "of illegal smokes". He told us that he sells individual smokes to each student for a dollar. The pack would have cost 10.00. He would have made 25 dollars a 15 dollar profit. We told him "we admire" your "business" spirit, but ah, NO...
Good God, man! Smokes are $10 a pack in Canada?!? Its a wonder that we don't have Canadian smokers as illegal aliens swarming into the U.S. just to have access to cheaper cigs. :laugh:

[CyberLaw]

The logic is: 68% tax to the Government, a high price to deter and "encourage" people to never start or quit smoking, to deter teens from spending their "valuable" pocket money on smokes.

Teens are targeted with a website, advertisements on buses, and a lot of other place to not smoke. The website is called stupid.ca

It really is quite the website......very well done and informative.

[txsvicki]

I would like to know if it's legal to arrest a 17 year old for having cigarettes on his person and to take him into custody. That is all the boy was given a citation for, so apparently it's not even an arrest type of thing. The boy didn't resist or have any disorderly conduct charges, it was his mother and sisters. The school really must not have wanted him back because it's not fair for some schools to allow kids to smoke and some not. Probably many kids in that school that very day had cigarettes on them and smoke at lunch. They could have sat him down and gave him a ticket for the cigarettes and not went into the whole arrest/custody issue.

[CyberLaw]

He was not under arrest, he was "detained" and handcuffed for "refusing to be searched" because he did have prior weapon offences.

A store has "heavy" fines and loss of smoke license if they are every caught selling smokes, a retailer has to "ask" for an "confirm" through pricture ID that the person is above 19.

Again all the kid had to do is consent to the search and none of this would have happened.

[crypto6]

I have always thought that LE can handcuff you if you are resisting/obstructing during a lawful search. That's a detainment, not an arrest, if they later decide to let you go.

If this 17 year old was asked to either consent to a search or leave, and he refused to do either, what were the officer's options?

You're at the heart of my question. We in the US have been taking LE to Federal courts for violation of civil rights in such cases. Where does the lawful, if it is at all, detaining end, and civil rights violations begin??

Other options: Arrest him right off when he failed to do as lawfully requested; this would have been entirely justified. Like I said , it's an arcane point, but interesting to those with a vigorous Constitution, as in the US. There shouldn't be a place between freedom and arrest where everyone with a badge can order citizens around at their silliest whim. Either arrest them and take the consequences if you're wrong, or let them go, but don't try to order someone to allow LE to violate their body by groping and manhandling and not have to take responsibility. To me, a search without permission is the same as punching me in the face, and more demeaning. Courts have been ruling more this way over the past decade.

Thanks for the interest. How do Australians feel about this subject?

[CyberLaw]

O.K., when a person is handcuffed, does that consitute an arrest, if the person doing the handcuffing(no jokes please) is not a Police Officer, but a ERO officer(there must be something about "handcuffing" in some sort of information) and b) does not have the "legal authority to "arrest that person" c) does not place the person under arrested as in "you are under arrest, and d) does not have to read that person "miranda rights" because that person is not under arrest.

I am sure somewhere it is written(who knows where) that a person can be "handcuffed and detained" under the following circumstances.

Detaining someone, even in handcuffs by a non police officer, and placing them under arrest by a lawful Police officer who has the authority to do same, is too different things.

Remember I am Canadian...but if a person is caught shoplifting in a store, they can be detained in handcuffs in a security office of the store, even tackled by security officer if they try to escape, they are being detained, not arrested, they can only be arrested by a Police Officer.

But then again, I am not fully up to date on US law, but detention, and arrest are two different animals. Like the Police can "invite" you down to the Pl=olice station for an interview, it is your choice to attend, if you are not under arrest you can "leave" at any time, but if you are under arrest, then you have no such "choice" at an invitation, placed in handcuffs, told you are under arrest and then read your miranda rights.

[Jeana (DP)]

It was within the officer's right to "detain" the young man and to use handcuffs, if he or she thought it necessary. Being handcuffed doesn't mean the person is under arrest.

[txsvicki]

He was not under arrest, he was "detained" and handcuffed for "refusing to be searched" because he did have prior weapon offences.

A store has "heavy" fines and loss of smoke license if they are every caught selling smokes, a retailer has to "ask" for an "confirm" through pricture ID that the person is above 19.

Again all the kid had to do is consent to the search and none of this would have happened.


I saw where it says that he was uncooperative, but it looks like they would have given him the option to just leave. I mean, he went into the school to register and wasn't committing any crime prior to the handcuffing. Is this legal? The article said that he was taken into "custody" and later his mother learned of the "arrest". I assumed that they found cigarettes during the search or at least saw them in a pocket and that's all they could charge him with. That is why I wondered if it's legal to arrest a minor for having cigarettes or to handcuff and search if he was not committing any crime?

[TECE]

I am not sure of all the legal terms but it is clearly stated in most student handbooks that anything you bring on a school campus is subject to search at anytime. I know this all seems like a kid being harassed and a mother who overacted but as a teacher on a high school campus, I see this very different.



First most resource officers on campus know their student body. If the resource officer knew this kid and knew about his prior arrest for weapons, I believe he handled the situation perfectly.



Second parents should enter a school with the understanding that a large number of children are watching their every action. If the resource officer did not handle this the way he did he could have suffered consequences in regards to the level of respect he receives from the student body.





Third, I know we are thinking a 17 year old is a child but you would be surprised at how often that statement does not apply. I would think if I was the parent a younger student on that campus say a 14 or 15 year old. I would be proud to know that the school protected my child from some one who has been known to carry a weapon.



Lastly, if the mother did this in a police station we would be outraged but because this officer's station is inside a school it is some how being viewed as different.

[mssheila]

TECE- you said it perfectly. And Cyberlaw- just to make sure you're clear, the ERO is an Educational Resource Officer. He's still a police officer, just assigned to that school.... It seemed like you thought he might not be an officer of the law, but rather a security guard of some sort.

Interesting debates here.

[Ang50]

This link is EXTREMELY useful in identifying the different stages in a stop. (plus a nice refresher from my criminal procedure class in law school.)

http://www.flexyourrights.org/street_stop_scenario

My problem with the entire situation turns on whether or not the boy was asked or allowed to leave without being searched. I agree that you must consent to search upon entry to certain buildings - school, courthouse, etc. If you don't want to be searched, then you leave.

Instead it sounds like the boy wanted to enter, and the officer handcuffed him for a search without any other reasons. When you are handcuffed, you are not "free to leave". Once you are not "free to leave", you are technically in custody although may not yet be "under arrest" for the purposes of Miranda warnings, etc. The police need "reasonable suspicion" to stop you on the street if they think you have committed a crime, but "probable cause" to arrest you. "Reasonable suspicion" isn't much but generally means the officer has more than a hunch, and an articulable reason why you are being stopped.

Of course, handcuffs are acceptable for safety reasons during a search prior to arrest, but only when that person has consented to a search. (or again, entered the building subject to search and is not willing to leave) The search will be illegal, and any evidence thrown out when a person refuses a search and police handcuff him to do so. (Searching people for weapons b4 putting them in a police car is "search incident to arrest" and is done for safety reasons, not for reasons to find evidence of crime. This boy's situation was not incident to arrest.) I'm guessing in this situation, the officer was not following protocol.
MsSheila - watch the papers for a civil lawsuit from this woman. If the facts are right, I'll bet she files. Esp. in Madison!!

[Ang50]

O.K., when a person is handcuffed, does that consitute an arrest, if the person doing the handcuffing(no jokes please) is not a Police Officer, but a ERO officer(there must be something about "handcuffing" in some sort of information) and b) does not have the "legal authority to "arrest that person" c) does not place the person under arrested as in "you are under arrest, and d) does not have to read that person "miranda rights" because that person is not under arrest.

I am sure somewhere it is written(who knows where) that a person can be "handcuffed and detained" under the following circumstances.

Detaining someone, even in handcuffs by a non police officer, and placing them under arrest by a lawful Police officer who has the authority to do same, is too different things.

Remember I am Canadian...but if a person is caught shoplifting in a store, they can be detained in handcuffs in a security office of the store, even tackled by security officer if they try to escape, they are being detained, not arrested, they can only be arrested by a Police Officer.

But then again, I am not fully up to date on US law, but detention, and arrest are two different animals. Like the Police can "invite" you down to the Pl=olice station for an interview, it is your choice to attend, if you are not under arrest you can "leave" at any time, but if you are under arrest, then you have no such "choice" at an invitation, placed in handcuffs, told you are under arrest and then read your miranda rights.
Just FYI - with regard to security guards, etc. if they take action against you they would face all kinds of criminal and tortious penalties b/c they have no legal authority. (not to mention no training and are often shady characters w/ criminal backgrounds = and for that reason, can't be real cops)

I would never go anywhere w/ a "security" guard and have instructed my children that if they are lost, they are to find a nice lady and tell her.

Stores and security guards have had big lawsuits for illegal and unlawful searches, kidnapping (if they don't let you leave) and otherwise.

[crypto6]

This link is EXTREMELY useful in identifying the different stages in a stop. (plus a nice refresher from my criminal procedure class in law school.)

http://www.flexyourrights.org/street_stop_scenario

My problem with the entire situation turns on whether or not the boy was asked or allowed to leave without being searched. I agree that you must consent to search upon entry to certain buildings - school, courthouse, etc. If you don't want to be searched, then you leave.

Instead it sounds like the boy wanted to enter, and the officer handcuffed him for a search without any other reasons. When you are handcuffed, you are not "free to leave". Once you are not "free to leave", you are technically in custody although may not yet be "under arrest" for the purposes of Miranda warnings, etc. The police need "reasonable suspicion" to stop you on the street if they think you have committed a crime, but "probable cause" to arrest you. "Reasonable suspicion" isn't much but generally means the officer has more than a hunch, and an articulable reason why you are being stopped.

Of course, handcuffs are acceptable for safety reasons during a search prior to arrest, but only when that person has consented to a search. (or again, entered the building subject to search and is not willing to leave) The search will be illegal, and any evidence thrown out when a person refuses a search and police handcuff him to do so. (Searching people for weapons b4 putting them in a police car is "search incident to arrest" and is done for safety reasons, not for reasons to find evidence of crime. This boy's situation was not incident to arrest.) I'm guessing in this situation, the officer was not following protocol.
MsSheila - watch the papers for a civil lawsuit from this woman. If the facts are right, I'll bet she files. Esp. in Madison!!

Thanks for the clarifications. I'm really interested in the twilight zone of the "in custody" but not yet under arrest situation; seems like it is tailor made for abuse, since Miranda doesn't apply, but one is not free to leave. Probable cause is now reduced to reasonable suspicion in this limbo state, and it's much easier to infringe on the rights of the US citizen to be left alone.
I still think the ERO should have arrested the guy and been done with it; he is a quick thinker and defused a bad situation.

[Ang50]

Thanks for the clarifications. I'm really interested in the twilight zone of the "in custody" but not yet under arrest situation; seems like it is tailor made for abuse, since Miranda doesn't apply, but one is not free to leave. Probable cause is now reduced to reasonable suspicion in this limbo state, and it's much easier to infringe on the rights of the US citizen to be left alone.
I still think the ERO should have arrested the guy and been done with it; he is a quick thinker and defused a bad situation.Yes, the "in limbo" state has tons of potential for abuse. The link I gave had the best advice - keep mouth shut and ask for a lawyer. EVen the innocent who try to explain often end up saying things are later used against them. Any interview with police should be suspicious - that's why I never blame someone for "lawyering up" when their loved ones are murdered. You can still answer questions, but you have someone to watch your back.

I only have a problem with the process, that the ERO needed to follow the rules and I don't think he did that, and didn't have enough of a reason not to...

[Ang50]

Mom's side of the story here -

http://www.campaignagainstthetaser.com/mom_objects_to_police_use_of_taser

Tasering is just one step below guns, IMHO. It's certainly deadly force, in that it has killed people b/c it can send them into cardiac arrest.

With the 17 year old handcuffed, this police officer couldn't use another method to control the mother? Dubious.

Not justifying her actions, just not justifying his either, and he is the one with greater responsibility.

[crypto6]

Mom's side of the story here -

http://www.campaignagainstthetaser.com/mom_objects_to_police_use_of_taser

Tasering is just one step below guns, IMHO. It's certainly deadly force, in that it has killed people b/c it can send them into cardiac arrest.

With the 17 year old handcuffed, this police officer couldn't use another method to control the mother? Dubious.

Not justifying her actions, just not justifying his either, and he is the one with greater responsibility.

The taser manufacturer has been crafty in promoting the device as a "safe" alternative to bullets and quickly downplaying any reports to the contrary. It's obvious from the literature below that tasers are quiet dangerous, especially in certain subgroups such as those with delirium:


1: Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006 Oct-Dec;10(4):447-50.


Taser use in restraint-related deaths.Strote J, Range Hutson H.
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.

Objective. The Taser is an electric weapon capable of releasing significant amounts of electricity in rapid pulses, causing uncontrollable muscle contraction. Use of this weapon has dramatically increased over the past decade, and it is now commonly used by law enforcement officers nationwide. Emergency medical services providers are, likewise, seeing more patients who have recently been subjected to application of a Taser. We examined the autopsy reports of patients who died after application of a Taser in an attempt to identify high-risk interactions. Methods. This is a case series of Taser-related deaths. Fatalities occurring over four years beginning in January 2001 were identified through an Internet search, and autopsy reports were requested. Reports were analyzed for patient demographics, preexisting cardiac disease, toxicology, evidence of excited delirium, restraint techniques used, and listed cause of death. Results. Of 75 cases identified, 37 (49.3%) had autopsy reports available for review. All cases involved men, with ages ranging from 18 to 50 years. Cardiovascular disease was found in 54.1%. Illegal substance use was found on toxicology screening for 78.4%; within that group, 86.2% were found to have been using stimulants. A diagnosis of excited delirium was given for 75.7% of the cases. Use of a Taser was considered a potential or contributory cause of death in 27%. Conclusions. This is the largest review of Taser-related fatalities reported in the medical literature. The findings are consistent with prior studies, suggesting a high frequency of restraint-related and excited delirium-related fatalities. Key words: emergency medical services; restraint; physical; fatal outcome; law enforcement.

PMID: 16997772 [PubMed - in process][/I]

NLM Link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=Pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16997772)

My interpretation is these stats show taser use is unacceptable except as the last and only alternative to handgun, shotgun, or rifle use. There is a 27% chance that if a taser is used and someone dies the taser effects were the cause of death or contributory to that death. The case in point may have actually been a situation where the taser was indeed the only alternative to a handgun, but the more I review it, the less likely that seems.

Thoughts??

Crypto6

[txsvicki]

Thanks Ang50, you described perfectly what I was thinking about all this. No offense to school workers on the forum, but it almost seems to me like schools make all sorts of rules and laws all to them themselves. As I've said before, I have been tricked, lied to, my questions dismissed, harassed, turned into CPS once only on ADD medication issues, my grandson was almost railroaded into an alternative school for blurting out too many times, seen severe violations of HIPPA medical confidentiality, denied a transfer in a case of reported severe bullying even though there is a state law stating that a student shall receive a transfer, seen 10 year boys sent to juvenile detention over something that dopeheads can't even be detained without bail for doing, and talked to other people who have been outright lied to and attempts made to deny them the very rules and regulations set up for attendance when they move from one area to another. I now have a really bad opinion of all schools and that's why I always question anything that they do.

[Ang50]

My interpretation is these stats show taser use is unacceptable except as the last and only alternative to handgun, shotgun, or rifle use. There is a 27% chance that if a taser is used and someone dies the taser effects were the cause of death or contributory to that death. The case in point may have actually been a situation where the taser was indeed the only alternative to a handgun, but the more I review it, the less likely that seems.

Thoughts??

Crypto6I agree with you - it's safer than a handgun, but it seems cops are using them to avoid putting their hands on someone. Also - I guess I could sort of understand if it was officer women using it in order to equalize muscle in a confrontation with a man. Or sometimes a druggie can be out of control - so I would understand.

I do not believe that a taser was necessary. I'm not well-informed with school officer training, but my husband is a special ed teacher for super-problem kids. They are trained in submission holds. I know police can take down and hold down a suspect and are trained in that area.

[Ang50]

Thanks Ang50, you described perfectly what I was thinking about all this. No offense to school workers on the forum, but it almost seems to me like schools make all sorts of rules and laws all to them themselves. As I've said before, I have been tricked, lied to, my questions dismissed, harassed, turned into CPS once only on ADD medication issues, my grandson was almost railroaded into an alternative school for blurting out too many times, seen severe violations of HIPPA medical confidentiality, denied a transfer in a case of reported severe bullying even though there is a state law stating that a student shall receive a transfer, seen 10 year boys sent to juvenile detention over something that dopeheads can't even be detained without bail for doing, and talked to other people who have been outright lied to and attempts made to deny them the very rules and regulations set up for attendance when they move from one area to another. I now have a really bad opinion of all schools and that's why I always question anything that they do.Well, you are in Texas, and they have their own rules and laws all to themselves too. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

But I agree - there's a lot of bureaucracy there, a Columbine reaction to any threats, and little tolerance for other opinions. Entrenched people trying to protect their jobs, etc. However, as my mom is a librarian in a high school, there's also criminal kids who bully and harm other's educational experience, parents who insist their children can do no wrong - and those are the ones that care. And private schools aren't much better...

But I also have a healthy suspicion and skepticism about police. As I mentioned b4 - I think lawsuit...

[Ang50]

and now we see another option -

School cop tasers 6th grader attacking girl...

http://www.cnn.com/

(If someone can post better link to the video, that'd be great.)

What is this world coming to?? We debate over corporal punishment in schools, but cops taser 12 year olds??

[heavenlydaze]

and now we see another option -

School cop tasers 6th grader attacking girl...

http://www.cnn.com/

(If someone can post better link to the video, that'd be great.)

What is this world coming to?? We debate over corporal punishment in schools, but cops taser 12 year olds??

Uh, Ang50...This doesn't seem to be your 'average' sixth-grader. Here ya' go:


School Officer Tasers Sixth Grader
Print E-mail This E-mail Make Us Home





Local News Headlines
Bond Denied for Fire Death Suspect
Police: Man Tried to Put Wife in Oven
New Push to Halt Meth Abuse
Teens Arrested in Break-In, Rape
Probe into Civil Rights Violations
Town Hall Meeting on APD Shooting
DeKalb Police Billboard Under Fire

Provided By: The Associated Press
Last Modified: 11/30/2006 10:21:05 AM

JONESBORO, Ga. (AP) -- School officials in Clayton County say a middle school security officer used a taser on a sixth-grader to break up his fight with a girl Wednesday.

Officials says the eleven-year-old shocked twice with the device at Jonesboro Middle School weighs 200 pounds and refused to obey orders to stop attacking the girl, also eleven. They say the taser was used as a last resort to prevent her from being seriously injured.

The two had been taken to the office to resolve an argument that started during lunch and spilled into a classroom....

More at link:
http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=88376

[heavenlydaze]

OOPS! Sorry about leaving the headings in the cut & paste! :doh:

[ihadcabinfever]

Here is the city of Madison Press Release on the incident. I can't seem to link it to the actual page, so you'll see a list of incidents. Go to the 11th link down, incident number 2006-135337 (http://www.cityofmadison.com/wsc/pdpress.wsc/ReleaseDetails.html?releaseNum=8341&highlightText=). It's listed as a "Disturbance" on 11/8/06
http://www.cityofmadison.com/wsc/pdpress.wsc/pdpressrelease

a 17-year-old male subject, who was not a student of the school, had been taken into custody by the ERO and was being cited/released on a municipal violation of possessing tobacco products. Jacquelyn L. Lightfoot (parent of the 17-year-old male) was made aware of the arrest scenario and responded to Memorial High School. Lightfoot made her way to the office of the ERO and began to verbally attack the officer for the police action he was involved in concerning the 17-year-old male.
*snip*
The ERO (Educational Resource officer) was then surrounded by Lightfoot and her two daughters in a confined area, and deeming Lightfoot the greatest threat, a Taser was utilized by the ERO to deescalate this threat to a manageable level. It should be noted that the officer verbalized and used a physical separation technique before using the Taser as his last resort. Jacquelyn L. Lightfoot and her two daughters were all arrested on charges of Disorderly Conduct and Resisting/Obstructing A Police Office

Here is a very short news article on the situation:
http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/4602466.html

Because he has prior weapons offenses, the school liaison officer was asked to search him. Police say he was uncooperative, so he was handcuffed.

Police spokesman Howard Payne says Jacquelyn Lightfoot arrived at the school and began swearing, screaming and demanding that her son be released.

Payne says when Lightfoot and her two daughters surrounded the officer and refused to back away, he used his Taser gun on the woman.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````
What in the world makes people think that they can assault a police officer, either verbally or physically? And, on top of that... her two daughters ended up getting arrested for helping the mother try to intimidate the officer by surrounding him and making the situation escalate very quickly. She allows her daughters to speak to the police this way? This is despicable. :behindbar :behindbar

What in the world makes people think that they can assault a police officer, either verbally or physically?
LOL you cannot.Guess she found that out. Electric shock. Did she hit him?

[Ang50]

Uh, Ang50...This doesn't seem to be your 'average' sixth-grader. Here ya' go:


School Officer Tasers Sixth Grader - School officials in Clayton County say a middle school security officer used a taser on a sixth-grader to break up his fight with a girl Wednesday.

Officials says the eleven-year-old shocked twice with the device at Jonesboro Middle School weighs 200 pounds and refused to obey orders to stop attacking the girl, also eleven. They say the taser was used as a last resort to prevent her from being seriously injured.
OK - I'll give you that one... I didn't look at the video b/c of my slow speed internet. So I may call that discretion, especially since it may not have been possible to separate him otherwise... Still gives me the willies.