<p>"...Corcoran says officers ordered the teen to back off, but he refused. He was then hit once by an officer's stun gun.
Afterward, the teen appeared incoherent. He went into cardiac arrest after paramedics arrived and was pronounced dead at University Hospital..."</p>
<p>They can’t know yet, of course, but it sounds like the teen was on something (or “off” something) and not in his right mind.</p>
<p>When tasers were introduced, they seemed to be the perfect weapon to subdue but not injure a violent suspect. Now there seem to be many tragic incidents.</p>
<p>Maybe the teen was dis oreinted after different hours, etc. In any event, I doubt he did anything that deserved a death penalty. I dont think tasers should be used against unarmed people. The police should be able to bring in unarmed people without them.</p>
<p>kayf–of course he didn’t deserve the “death penalty”…they were trying to subdue him, not try and convict him.</p>
<p>It’s true that police should be trained in judo or other methods to subdue unarmed people. Before tasers, they probably were.</p>
<p>Edit: OTOH, a really large suspect, on drugs that would make him violent and feeling no pain, would be hard to take down unless there were many officers on the task.</p>
<p>Used their guns, or got overpowered by a suspect, who escaped.</p>
<p>I agree, Tasers have been shown not to be as safe as they were thought to be. But sometimes suspects die in custody from the effects of a drug overdose, for instance, and the Taser was not the cause at all.</p>
<p>In this case, the suspect was not trying to escape, but advancing on the police. Their training is probably to use the Taser rather than risk hand-to-hand combat, having their guns seized by the suspect, and so forth.</p>
<p>I didn’t get the impression he was “advancing” on the police. Just that he was standing there and didn’t back off. There’s a difference. </p>
<p>In olden days, I suppose police used their billy clubs to subdue unarmed people. And their fists. And handcuffs. Hard to believe a taser was truly necessary for two officers to subdue this kid, even assuming that he really needed to be “subdued” in the first place. As opposed to, say, taking the time necessary to talk to him and try to figure out what was bothering him. </p>
<p>If tasers weren’t allowed, it isn’t as if they would have been justified in shooting him. An escaping felon is one thing (maybe), but just what crime had this kid committed? None at all, so far as I can tell. Why even call him a suspect? What was he suspected of?</p>
<p>Perhaps not; but I have a good friend whose husband is a totally disabled ex police officer. He suffered irreversible brain damage while trying to make an arrest. He cannot work and is in constant pain. His wife’s work options are limited because she needs to care for him. He gets a small disability payment. His family was reasonably comfortable; now they live in subsidized housing and survive on food stamps. </p>
<p>No tattoos showing and, if one looks for information about his high school’s athletic teams, it appears that he weighs about 160 pounds so not exactly “a big man”.</p>