You Were Wrong to Taze That Guy, Bro

According to Chap. 776.05 (1) of Florida Statute, an officer is empowered to use force "Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest." Just in case you may be wondering how this rule and the rest of this section of Florida Law is applied practically by the cops on the street, there are policies governing the proper use of tazers by Florida Law Enforcement Officials, in such places as Orange County, Miami, and Leon County. According to all of these policies, officers must use an increasing use of force matrix to address the threat, starting with a physical presence (Level 1) up to use of firearms (Level 6). In the middle, at Level 4 is deployment of ECD or tazer.

Without having seen an actual copy of the report issued by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, I would have to say that this entire affair is a bit of a white wash. From the number of officers and the lack of meaningful escalation on the part of the six or seven deputies that were surrounding Mr. Meyer at the time of the incident, it is reasonable to assume that the aforementioned deputies were not familiar with the proper techniques in deploying tazer and should be held criminally and civilly liable for the harm to Mr. Meyer's person and reputation. For instance, the aforementioned policy of Miami, "A single act of non-compliance shall not justify the use of a tazer weapon." Furthermore, the use of a tazer is only authorized if the subject is continuing to resist, not like Mr. Meyer who expressed a willingness to cooperate with law enforcement officials at the time of his arrest. ( See the Sept. 20 posting, Tazers: Tool or Crutch? )

In the case of Graham vs. Conner. 490 US 386 (1989), the court determined that reasonable use of force is governed by the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. To summarize, when considering the reasonableness of a particular instance of the use of force the court should make allowances for the implicit use of force suggested by the arrest powers of law enforcement officials and their need to react to tense and uncertain situations. However, the court should primarily address the following: the severity of the crime, the danger posed by the suspect to himself and others, and any attempt to resist arrest or flight. In the particular case of Mr. Meyer, it is apparent that asking a question of an elected official does not, in and of itself, constitute grounds to deploy a tazer against a suspect. The officers on the scene, by virtue of their numbers, should have been able to restrain Mr. Meyer without having to resort to an escalated use of force. Also, at no time did Mr. Meyer ever do anything to flee the scene or resist the arresting officers. Which brings us back to the remaining justification, the danger presented by the subject to himself and others. Is this really the justification of the use of force on Mr. Meyer?

Was his question so dangerous that it required deployment of a tazer in such an arbitrary and capricious manner? Anyone who values not living in a fascist police state should care about this case and its ramifications for the rest of us.