Taser gun used on 10-year-old girl who refused to take shower

[nick]

A police officer used a Taser stun gun to subdue a 10-year-old girl in her own home.

The officer had been called to the girl's home in Ozark, Arkansas, by her mother because she was behaving in an unruly manner and refusing to take a shower.

In a report on the incident the officer, Dustin Bradshaw, said the mother gave him permission to use the Taser.

When he arrived, the girl was curled up on the floor, screaming, and resisting as her mother tried to get her in the shower before bed.

"Her mother told me to take her if I needed to," the officer wrote.

The child was "violently kicking and verbally combative" when he tried to take her into custody and she kicked him in the groin.

He then delivered "a very brief drive stun to her back," the report said.

The girl's father, Anthony Medlock, who is divorced from her mother, said the girl showed signs of emotional problems but did not deserve to be "treated like an animal".

He said: "Ten years old and they shot electricity through her body, and I want to know how the heck in God's green earth can they get away with this.

"If you can't pick the kid up and take her to your car, handcuff her, then I don't think you need to be an officer. She doesn't deserve to be treated like a dog. She's not a tiger." Local Mayor Vernon McDaniel said the FBI should investigate.

He said: "People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation." The local Police Chief Jim Noggle said no disciplinary action was taken against Bradshaw.

"We didn't use the Taser to punish the child, just to bring the child under control so she wouldn't hurt herself or somebody else," he said.

He said if the officer tried to forcefully put the girl in handcuffs, he could have accidentally broken her arm or leg.

Mr Noggle said the girl will face disorderly conduct charges as a juvenile.


Source here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6602043/Taser-gun-used-on-10-year-old-girl-who-refused-to-take-shower.html)

[Aηdy]

Just read this on OCUK.

So stupid mother. And police forcing girl to take a shower. WTH?

[Kapitan Kokenbalz]

Well, he could've forced her into the shower and then taken the taser to her. I think she got off easy.

[Hatsune Miku]

You tase a 10 year old girl for not taking a shower?
WTF? What kind of idiotic parent would call an officer because her 10 year old daughter wont take a shower? Just let her be. She doesn't wanna take a shower, big deal. She can take one some other time.
God its like people are getting stupider by the day.
And shes faceing disorderly conduct charges as a juvenile. What?!
Shes 10 years old give her a break. And that cops an idiot anyway. You ever heard of a cup? Its made so you don't get kicked down there.
Stupid...

[mrmcdonaldduck]

epic fail on their, that is the mum and cops, behalf

[The Batman]

Badass kid get's tasered shit just take a belt to her ass she'll straighten up then.

[Quick_Sylver]

She should have kicked him a couple of times. She's ten. TEN. He couldn't pick her up? Wow. He should hit the gym. Jeez.

She's got spirit though, you gotta give her that.

[IowaBoy]

If you have to call the cops because your child to take a shower you SHOULD NOT be a parent...

As for the officer, were the hell did you get your training, he would have been better off restraining her if it was needed. But if uneeded...he is..well...a weak officer.

[nick]

If you have to call the cops because your child to take a shower you SHOULD NOT be a parent...
Ah yes, know you're getting close to my thought. But not only that, what sort of society has police that would respond to a call like that? How is a child being naughty in their own home a police matter?

Its kinda funny that parents can be terrified of smacking their own children (and I dont mean real violence here, I dont support that) but its ok to get a cop in to tazer them. What a fucked up situation/society/way of thinking.

[INFERNO]

I'm not understanding why the mother called the cops on this. If you cant get your 10-year old kid in the shower to a point where you need a police officer to assist you, then you're not a fit parent. Also, this shows me that the mother doesn't exactly understand the purpose of the emergency response system. The purpose is in the name and not getting your 10-year old kid to go into the shower presumably isn't an emergency. I'm even more baffled as to why the officer didn't write up the mother with making a false call.

I'm being somewhat of a Devil's Advocate here in that I can sort of understand why the cop would use the taser on the kid. My reasoning goes as follows: the officer is called in for this pointless matter and sees it's obvious that unless he/she interferes, it's only going to escalate and without interfering, he risks the change that the mother will make yet another pointless call. So the officer may have simply tried to resolve the issue there and then. Using the taser on the kid could either be due to just having a shit day, pissing the officer off or that he/she didn't want to deal with it all that much and the simplest way without causing harm to the kid is to give a quick jolt then plop the kid into the tub rather than pull out the nightstick to make the kid's head turn to soup or pull out the gun.

So in this, I don't blame the officer for using the taser, I blame the mother for being an unfit and stupid mother. I also blame the officer for not writing the mother up on a false call.

[apocalypse]

I believe there was no need for a taser to be used on a ten year old girl, in such a manner like that. If the child didn't want to shower, the mother should have given her the ultimatum, "well, then you're just going to stink all day tomorrow," or something along those lines. A weapon, that's supposed to be used for dangerous adults, should not have been used on a young child.

[Whisper]

theirs allot going on here behind the scenes
the child should be in protective custody if that's the behavior the mother continually exhibits

as for the cop
i'm not in the least bit surprised

[Truth]

Damnit, and people wonder why I could say there's people in this world I could kill? Such retardation.

[Faithfull]

Quite frankly i think that this should be classed as child abuse and both the mother and the officer in question should face changes. To shot a 10 year old girl in the back with a taser becuase she wouldn't get in the shower is repulsive, to be a mother and give somebody permission to do this to your ten-year-olds girl is, in my opinion, a sign of some form of mental illness!
If the father of this little girl does not attempt to press charges on these to adults then there is something very wrong.

[Perseus]

I sort of see why the kid was tasered.. He tried to cuff her, and she wasn't cooperating. Handcuffing someone who is unwilling can cause lots of harm and such. This whole case is pretty ridiculous, I don't see why she didn't want to take a shower...
And whoever said "that's what a cup is for", you can still get hurt if you get kicked in the nuts with a cup on.

[Kahn]

Just take a shower!

[INFERNO]

Quite frankly i think that this should be classed as child abuse and both the mother and the officer in question should face changes. To shot a 10 year old girl in the back with a taser becuase she wouldn't get in the shower is repulsive, to be a mother and give somebody permission to do this to your ten-year-olds girl is, in my opinion, a sign of some form of mental illness!
If the father of this little girl does not attempt to press charges on these to adults then there is something very wrong.

I think you missed the reason the kid was tazered. She wasn't tazered because she wasn't getting in the shower, she was tazered because she assaulted the officer, was obviously behaving too abnormal to control and refused to listen to the officer. The officer had to restrain her in some way and tazering was the way to cause the least harm. His goal wasn't to plop her in the shower then but rather to handcuff her and get her settled down.

The problem with this whole issue and that you're missing is that the vital parts of the story are missing. Obviously the officer didn't think it was a false alarm when they arrived so clearly something was up with the girl. So one of the things not mentioned is what the girl was doing and why.

Take these two examples: Girl A and B are both unwilling to take a shower. Girl A shouts a bit but that's all. Girl B pushes her mother down the stairs and the mother is badly injured. In both cases, the officer is called in by the mother and in both cases the officer tazers the girl. It would seem probably wrong for Girl A to be tazered but it may be more necessary on Girl B assuming they both were continuing their behavior (i.e. Girl A with a bit of shouting and Girl B with kicking, punching, pushing, etc...). In both cases though, the news doesn't say what the girl did, only that she got tazered. So, was the officer in the right or not? Without being told, we cannot know because we do not have the vital details of what happened.

[Faithfull]

I think you missed the reason the kid was tazered. She wasn't tazered because she wasn't getting in the shower, she was tazered because she assaulted the officer, was obviously behaving too abnormal to control and refused to listen to the officer. The officer had to restrain her in some way and tazering was the way to cause the least harm. His goal wasn't to plop her in the shower then but rather to handcuff her and get her settled down.

The problem with this whole issue and that you're missing is that the vital parts of the story are missing. Obviously the officer didn't think it was a false alarm when they arrived so clearly something was up with the girl. So one of the things not mentioned is what the girl was doing and why.

Take these two examples: Girl A and B are both unwilling to take a shower. Girl A shouts a bit but that's all. Girl B pushes her mother down the stairs and the mother is badly injured. In both cases, the officer is called in by the mother and in both cases the officer tazers the girl. It would seem probably wrong for Girl A to be tazered but it may be more necessary on Girl B assuming they both were continuing their behavior (i.e. Girl A with a bit of shouting and Girl B with kicking, punching, pushing, etc...). In both cases though, the news doesn't say what the girl did, only that she got tazered. So, was the officer in the right or not? Without being told, we cannot know because we do not have the vital details of what happened.

OK, so a lot of details are missing, obviously the weight of the 10 year old in question is quiet important as well, there's a difference between an 8 stone 10 y.o. having a tantrum and a 14 stone 10 y.o having one.

Having said that. I am around police officers all day and i asked them what they would do in a situation like this. All of them agreed that, with the imformation we have on the case, using a Taser gun on the girl comes under the heading of unessacary force and trying to get her into hand cuffs was far too dangerous.

It's not like officers are weak, they're all perfcectly able to pick a 10 year old girl up... most of them can life their own body weight. So i dont understand what stopped him from throwing the girl over his back (to prevent any ingeries to himself) taking her to a room where she could not hurt herself or anyone else and locking her in until she cooled off.

[The Batman]

I think you missed the reason the kid was tazered. She wasn't tazered because she wasn't getting in the shower, she was tazered because she assaulted the officer, was obviously behaving too abnormal to control and refused to listen to the officer. The officer had to restrain her in some way and tazering was the way to cause the least harm. His goal wasn't to plop her in the shower then but rather to handcuff her and get her settled down.

The problem with this whole issue and that you're missing is that the vital parts of the story are missing. Obviously the officer didn't think it was a false alarm when they arrived so clearly something was up with the girl. So one of the things not mentioned is what the girl was doing and why.

Take these two examples: Girl A and B are both unwilling to take a shower. Girl A shouts a bit but that's all. Girl B pushes her mother down the stairs and the mother is badly injured. In both cases, the officer is called in by the mother and in both cases the officer tazers the girl. It would seem probably wrong for Girl A to be tazered but it may be more necessary on Girl B assuming they both were continuing their behavior (i.e. Girl A with a bit of shouting and Girl B with kicking, punching, pushing, etc...). In both cases though, the news doesn't say what the girl did, only that she got tazered. So, was the officer in the right or not? Without being told, we cannot know because we do not have the vital details of what happened.

I agree with this.

A child throwing a temper tantrum isn't safe for anyone and if she wouldn't cooperate and was starting to assault the officer(which she was doing) then a small shock isn't shit. It's not like it's going to do any long term damages.

[INFERNO]

OK, so a lot of details are missing, obviously the weight of the 10 year old in question is quiet important as well, there's a difference between an 8 stone 10 y.o. having a tantrum and a 14 stone 10 y.o having one.

Having said that. I am around police officers all day and i asked them what they would do in a situation like this. All of them agreed that, with the imformation we have on the case, using a Taser gun on the girl comes under the heading of unessacary force and trying to get her into hand cuffs was far too dangerous.

It's not like officers are weak, they're all perfcectly able to pick a 10 year old girl up... most of them can life their own body weight. So i dont understand what stopped him from throwing the girl over his back (to prevent any ingeries to himself) taking her to a room where she could not hurt herself or anyone else and locking her in until she cooled off.

True, the officers probably could lift double the girl's weight but you're ignoring the fact that the girl is kicking, hitting, etc... . Even if the officer was strong, a kick to the groin or knee to the nose is going to hurt even if it's from a 10-year old so it's not as simple as slinging the girl over their back because grabbing her would probably do them a good amount of harm. What's worse, having a broken nose and bruises or having no injuries on the officer? What's worse for the girl, having been wrestled down aggressively and injured because she's only 10-years old or simply stunned and walked off? Simple questions and the answers are incredibly obvious.

Take for example two dogs:

Dog A is a nice quiet dog and you pick it up and that's that.
Dog B is snarling and snapping at you so if you try to grab it, it's going to bite you something fierce before you can pick it up.

In both cases you have the physical strength to pick up a compliant dog but once it's struggling, biting, etc..., it's more dangerous and much more difficult to do.

As for asking the officers, you're forgetting the fact that we don't know the details that we need. Obviously an officer would say they'd try to pick the kid up but we don't know what the kid was doing, what they were on, the size and strength of them, etc... . Hence, asking the officers is useless because the answer will simply reflect what they normally would do but the girl wasn't exhibiting normal behavior. Return to the example of Dog A and Dog B. If all I said was the dog was stunned by some device or was wrestled down and carted off by several people, then it would seem as over-kill but how do you know I'm referring to Dog A or Dog B? You don't! Hell, I could be talking about Dog C and D for all you know. Don't you see the problem here?

[Lily of the Valley]

True, the officers probably could lift double the girl's weight but you're ignoring the fact that the girl is kicking, hitting, etc... . Even if the officer was strong, a kick to the groin or knee to the nose is going to hurt even if it's from a 10-year old so it's not as simple as slinging the girl over their back because grabbing her would probably do them a good amount of harm. What's worse, having a broken nose and bruises or having no injuries on the officer? What's worse for the girl, having been wrestled down aggressively and injured because she's only 10-years old or simply stunned and walked off? Simple questions and the answers are incredibly obvious.

Take for example two dogs:

Dog A is a nice quiet dog and you pick it up and that's that.
Dog B is snarling and snapping at you so if you try to grab it, it's going to bite you something fierce before you can pick it up.

In both cases you have the physical strength to pick up a compliant dog but once it's struggling, biting, etc..., it's more dangerous and much more difficult to do.

As for asking the officers, you're forgetting the fact that we don't know the details that we need. Obviously an officer would say they'd try to pick the kid up but we don't know what the kid was doing, what they were on, the size and strength of them, etc... . Hence, asking the officers is useless because the answer will simply reflect what they normally would do but the girl wasn't exhibiting normal behavior. Return to the example of Dog A and Dog B. If all I said was the dog was stunned by some device or was wrestled down and carted off by several people, then it would seem as over-kill but how do you know I'm referring to Dog A or Dog B? You don't! Hell, I could be talking about Dog C and D for all you know. Don't you see the problem here?I've picked up a struggling ten year old kid. I expect a police officer to be able to. And I sure as hell expect a police officer to be able to take a few hits without losing his temper - which we all know is what happened, since it says he got hit in the groin - and tasering a ten year old.

The mother obviously fails as a parent, and the officer obviously fails as a cop. This girl might just be misbehaving, but what about other issues? She could be genuinely mentally ill, or she could have been very poorly raised her entire life, and that's not something kids grow out of by the time they're ten. That takes a lot longer than that.

What part of the US did this happen? They were probably stupid enough to think she was possessed or something. QUICK, LET'S TASER HER. I BET THAT'LL HELP.

~Maggot

[ShatteredWings]

Ozark, Arkansas, from the article

Shock. really. I agree with you, and the fact that the kid is getting charged is beyond me

[Sugaree]

The kid gets tasered...for refusing to take a shower? First, there are multiple people at fault here.

1. The mother. You call the cops to deal with your ten year old daughter who refused to bathe? Really, you shouldn't be a parent.

2. The officer. Really, where did your training go? Why did you even answer that call? Also, they're called 'cups'. USE THEM IF YOU WANT YOUR BALLS TO BE COMFY.

3. The girl. She's to fault because she assaulted an officer of the law by kicking him in the groin.

I have never facepalmed in my life like this before. I almost did a facewall because it's so much fail on the mother and officer's part.

[INFERNO]

I've picked up a struggling ten year old kid. I expect a police officer to be able to. And I sure as hell expect a police officer to be able to take a few hits without losing his temper - which we all know is what happened, since it says he got hit in the groin - and tasering a ten year old.

That's the thing though, we don't know how much she was struggling or why she was fighting that much. The kid you picked up could have been struggling far less, been smaller, etc... . These are all factors we don't know yet are crucial to know.


The mother obviously fails as a parent, and the officer obviously fails as a cop. This girl might just be misbehaving, but what about other issues? She could be genuinely mentally ill, or she could have been very poorly raised her entire life, and that's not something kids grow out of by the time they're ten. That takes a lot longer than that.

Exactly, we don't know why she was struggling. Odds are the mother probably wasn't that great of a mother because she would have known about any problems the girl had and would have known what not to do. So I think it's easier to say she was at fault. As for the officer, it's debatable depending on the behavior of the girl. Either way though, she assaulted the officer but we don't know if she was in right mind or not.


What part of the US did this happen? They were probably stupid enough to think she was possessed or something. QUICK, LET'S TASER HER. I BET THAT'LL HELP.

I wonder if it's possible to avoid such negative stereotypes. I guess not.

[Lily of the Valley]

That's the thing though, we don't know how much she was struggling or why she was fighting that much. The kid you picked up could have been struggling far less, been smaller, etc... . These are all factors we don't know yet are crucial to know.Dude. I was 16. Cops make a living being able to take down grown adults, and they're well-trained in self-defense. They should be able to handle a ten year old without losing their temper and fucking tasering her. I know where you're coming from, but I expect more from cops than that kind of behaviour.
I wonder if it's possible to avoid such negative stereotypes. I guess not.I wonder if it's possible for people to read between the lines. I guess not. I wasn't seriously saying that's probably what happened - of course, it's entirely possible. The chances are very slim, but such an extreme reaction to a girl throwing a tantrum does indicate that their was some...less than logical thinking going on at the time.

~Maggot

[Bougainvillea]

Either way, that little girl is badass.

[IowaBoy]

*edited post*

i think i may have found the cop on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H20cedylQAo&feature=related

[INFERNO]

Dude. I was 16. Cops make a living being able to take down grown adults, and they're well-trained in self-defense. They should be able to handle a ten year old without losing their temper and fucking tasering her. I know where you're coming from, but I expect more from cops than that kind of behaviour.

The officer could have tasered her not out of anger (although I'm sure anger was involved on the officer's part) but rather out of safety of the girl. I'm sure the officer could have indeed restrained her without the taser due to their training as you mentioned, however, it may have simply been safer for himself as well as the girl to taser the girl as opposed to physically restrain her. The other component is that the mother allowed or encouraged the officer to use the taser and perhaps the officer was unsure about using the taser and that made him/her more sure.


I wonder if it's possible for people to read between the lines. I guess not. I wasn't seriously saying that's probably what happened - of course, it's entirely possible. The chances are very slim, but such an extreme reaction to a girl throwing a tantrum does indicate that their was some...less than logical thinking going on at the time.

It's harder to tell if someone is being sarcastic online compared to real-life. Unfortunately, I'm not a mind-reader so I don't know exactly what your thought was at that time.

[Giles]

The kid gets tasered...for refusing to take a shower? First, there are multiple people at fault here.

1. The mother. You call the cops to deal with your ten year old daughter who refused to bathe? Really, you shouldn't be a parent.

2. The officer. Really, where did your training go? Why did you even answer that call? Also, they're called 'cups'. USE THEM IF YOU WANT YOUR BALLS TO BE COMFY.

3. The girl. She's to fault because she assaulted an officer of the law by kicking him in the groin.

I have never facepalmed in my life like this before. I almost did a facewall because it's so much fail on the mother and officer's part.

1. I agree

2. I agree that the police in general shouldn't of responded, that he PROBABLY shouldn't of used his taser... But really, what cop is going to wear a cup every time they get a call.

3. I agree

I think that the cop was right to use the taser.
If you read the article it says:
"a very brief drive stun to her back,"
all that's going to do is shock her a bit, it's got nothing to do with being tough. If a kid (over 8) is kicking and punching in places where it's going to hurt then there's just cause to use the taser to shut them up. Then control the situation.
Also the mother gave permission.

[Sugaree]

Tasers give off a very strong electrical charge (a few thousand VOLTS mind you). Using it on a girl at the age of ten would do more than just "give a brief stun". That would take her nervous system and fuck it up royally.

[The Batman]

Volts don't mean anything though.

Finally, while Tasers are high voltage, they are low wattage. This distinction is key to understanding the injury patterns seen with these weapons.

An electrical injury can be considered similar to being struck on the foot with a falling stone. When the stone hits you, the amount of injury you receive will largely be mediated by two factors: the size of the rock and height of the fall. Obviously, a pebble falling from a roof will cause much less injury than a 100-pound boulder falling even a few inches.

In electrical injuries, the voltage can be viewed as the stone’s height and the amperage as its size. Tasers have high voltage (tall height) but low amperage (small size). Thus, a Taser may fire with 50,000 volts, but it has minimal amperage—like a small pebble that falls from a roof. It stings, but is unlikely to crush your foot the way the boulder would.

In advanced cardiac life support, the initial amperage in treatment of ventricular fibrillation is 200 joules. Interestingly, the threshold to induce ventricular fibrillation in a normal heart is much less: generally 10 to 50 joules is considered the minimum. Most Tasers fire at only 0.5 joules or less. The most common model fires at 0.3 joules—about 30 times below the lowest listed threshold of ventricular fibrillation.
http://www.ncchc.org/pubs/CC/tasers.html

So a taser will not fuck up her nervous system it just restrains her temporarily.

[Hatsune Miku]

joIYOZlyZqE

The x26 tasers ( Standard issue ) have cameras attached to them. You're supposed to record every time you use the taser. He never recorded it. I wonder why?
And tasers can cause death or serious injury ( Its rare, but possible ). What if that girl had a condition? That cop would be in alot of shit

"a very brief drive stun to her back"

How do we know that's true? I could throw, lets say, a brick, at someone head and say, " I was walking but tripped "

all that's going to do is shock her a bit, it's got nothing to do with being tough. If a kid (over 8) is kicking and punching in places where it's going to hurt then there's just cause to use the taser to shut them up. Then control the situation.

I controlled a 13 year old with a knife in their hand. Pointing at me. Im pretty sure a full grown adult can handle a 10 year old girl

Also the mother gave permission.

If my mother gave people permission to do half the stuff shes wanted to do to me, I would be dead by now

DONT TASE ME BRO!

[sweetmisery]

Wow. It's a shower firstly. Secondly, why would police respond to something like that. Third, a mother should know how to handle her child and not be calling for the police to handle that.

"If you can't pick the kid up and take her to your car, handcuff her, then I don't think you need to be an officer. She doesn't deserve to be treated like a dog. She's not a tiger."

QFT. That officer did not have to go as far as to use a taser gun on a ten year old child. For all we know, she could have faced some serious injuries from the shot of electricity he sent jolting through her body.


Mr Noggle said the girl will face disorderly conduct charges as a juvenile.


It's like her mother WANTED her to be sent off. She told the officer to take her child if he needed to and that's so wrong on so many levels. Kids act up, you don't call the police on them and give the officer permission to taser them because their yelling and kicking. You put them in time out for 10-20 minutes and hope they calm down or you take something away from them.

If that girl is going to juve for this...a lot more kids would be in juve. One of the stupid things a police officer could do added to the list.

[The Batman]

QFT. That officer did not have to go as far as to use a taser gun on a ten year old child. For all we know, she could have faced some serious injuries from the shot of electricity he sent jolting through her body. If she was hurt then this would have been blown even farther out of proportion thanit already is.



It's like her mother WANTED her to be sent off. She told the officer to take her child if he needed to and that's so wrong on so many levels. Kids act up, you don't call the police on them and give the officer permission to taser them because their yelling and kicking. You put them in time out for 10-20 minutes and hope they calm down or you take something away from them.
She wouldn't have been sent off most likely they would have placed her in protective services or put her with her dad or other relative. Seriously if your child is acting up to the point where you can't control them at all then calling the police is a good option it gets that child into the hands of someone who could possibly handle them better and it prevents an even worse situation from happening. I'm not saying teh cop is right for using the taser on her but I'm also not saying he's wrong for it because like INFERNO has been saying we don't have all the details of it.

[AncientCatastrophe]

Wow.....The girl was tasered for not taking a bath....:horse:
Really the girl should have just taken a shower, its not that hard to do.
And why did the mother call the cops, she should be the one making her daughter behave and does she really have to agree on using the taser gun.
But maybe the mother didn't know what a taser gun is.......They should ask her :eat:

[INFERNO]

Wow. It's a shower firstly. Secondly, why would police respond to something like that. Third, a mother should know how to handle her child and not be calling for the police to handle that.

First, I doubt the police responded to her saying "help, I cant get my daughter to take a shower". I assume she said something else probably in regard to her daughter's behavior. Second, you're assuming the mother could handle the daughter's behavior. I don't know what the daughter was doing and neither do you, however, by the officer's reaction, it's clear that the daughter was exhibiting abnormal behavior and could not be calmed down. We can suggest she may have had a mental disorder, however, that's not known to us. All we know is the mother was incapable of handling her daughter's behavior properly. It is possible the mother was involved in setting the daughter off but this is simply an inference that we cannot verify.


QFT. That officer did not have to go as far as to use a taser gun on a ten year old child. For all we know, she could have faced some serious injuries from the shot of electricity he sent jolting through her body.

It is a possibility, however, it's not a large possibility. The officer had a right to use the taser because he could not calm her down verbally and upon trying to physically do so (suggesting she was either impaired or very unwilling), she assaulted him. The tasering allowed for a quicker way to detain her rather than have the officer wrestle her down. I'm certain he could have wrestled her down, however, I think that may have caused more damage to her and him.

Which would you choose: take the method more likely to damage you and her or take a less damaging way? The answer is obvious.


It's like her mother WANTED her to be sent off. She told the officer to take her child if he needed to and that's so wrong on so many levels. Kids act up, you don't call the police on them and give the officer permission to taser them because their yelling and kicking. You put them in time out for 10-20 minutes and hope they calm down or you take something away from them.

Once again, you're assumption is faulty because it's unlikely the officer would have intervened if she was just a bit pissy. It's more likely she was impaired in some way, possibly by mental disorder.


If that girl is going to juve for this...a lot more kids would be in juve. One of the stupid things a police officer could do added to the list.

You have a point here and if she was exhibiting such violent and uncontrollable behavior, she shouldn't be tossed into juvenille detention.

Really the girl should have just taken a shower, its not that hard to do.

True, however, something clearly set her off, possibly it was the bath or possibly it wasn't.


And why did the mother call the cops, she should be the one making her daughter behave and does she really have to agree on using the taser gun.
But maybe the mother didn't know what a taser gun is.......They should ask her :eat:

I'm going to assume the mother knows what a taser gun is because most people do. I don't think the mother simply said the daughter won't take a bath, I think she said something else regarding her daughter's violent and aggressive behavior. As I said above, using the taser after the daughter assaulted the officer allows for minimal damage to the daughter and officer compared to the officer wrestling her down.