Hundreds mourn Tasered Miami graffiti artist

RPMDAD

Well-Known Member
OK, i want to say up front i am a big LEO supporter, however this one does have me a little confused.

Colombian-born Israel Hernandez-Llach died on Tuesday after police shocked him with a Taser as he ran away from officers who caught him spray-painting the wall of a shuttered McDonald's.

As he ran away to me that sounds like he wasn't a threat. Spray painting a shuttered store, doesn't sound like a felony or threatening violation. Does this mean the LEO's were just to lazy to chase him down and lock him up. I think this is like a misdemeanor at most, DOP maybe. I know taser's are suppose to be less lethal than bullets.

Hundreds mourn Tasered Miami graffiti artist
 

Bay_Kat

Tropical
From what I've seen on TV about this, his graffiti would have only been an improvement. You're right, if he was running away, he wasn't a threat. You won't hear me say this often, but I think the police were wrong on this one.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
Was he breaking any law? Let me answer for you. Yes: defacing and damaging private property. Had he not done that he would not have been tazed, ergo he would be alive. This is nothing more than a case of the perp becomes the victim.
 

limblips

Well-Known Member
Oh, I forgot to mention, "Graffiti Artist". When did graffiti artist become the term for vandalism?

From Wikipedia Dictionary:
In modern times, paint, particularly spray paint, and marker pens have become the most commonly used graffiti materials. In most countries, marking or painting property without the property owner's consent is considered defacement and vandalism, which is a punishable crime.

Graffiti may also express underlying social and political messages and a whole genre of artistic expression is based upon spray paint graffiti styles. Within hip hop culture, graffiti has evolved alongside hip hop music, b-boying, and other elements.[3] Unrelated to hip-hop graffiti, gangs use their own form of graffiti to mark territory or to serve as an indicator of gang-related activities.

Controversies that surround graffiti continue to create disagreement amongst city officials, law enforcement, and writers who wish to display and appreciate work in public locations. There are many different types and styles of graffiti and it is a rapidly developing art form whose value is highly contested and reviled by many authorities while also subject to protection, sometimes within the same jurisdiction.
 
Last edited:

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
The "Senseless Murder" sign being held by a protester is evidence that this is the same senseless reaction to a police action as to the George Zimmerman verdict. Nobody can predict that a taser will lead to the death of the perp. Had the perp been tased and had he survived, this story wouldn't even be made public.
 

itsrequired

New Member
As he ran away to me that sounds like he wasn't a threat. Spray painting a shuttered store, doesn't sound like a felony or threatening violation. Does this mean the LEO's were just to lazy to chase him down and lock him up. I think this is like a misdemeanor at most, DOP maybe. I know taser's are suppose to be less lethal than bullets.

Hundreds mourn Tasered Miami graffiti artist

Tazers are regularly used as a means to apprehend a suspect who has committed a crime. A tazer deployment is meant to be a temporary incapacitate a person and is of course meant to be less than lethal. I think your description of the cop being too lazy to chase the guy down is less than accurate.

The cop is wearing at least 30 extra pounds of equipment, most likely a boot or shoe other than one designed to run, and it sounds like the environment to get in a foot chase was not the type of environment an officer should be in alone.

I wasn't there, but chasing the guy down for the misdemeanor arrest and then having to apprehend him using physical force is often more harmful than deploying your tazer.
 

Bay_Kat

Tropical
Tazers are regularly used as a means to apprehend a suspect who has committed a crime. A tazer deployment is meant to be a temporary incapacitate a person and is of course meant to be less than lethal. I think your description of the cop being too lazy to chase the guy down is less than accurate.

The cop is wearing at least 30 extra pounds of equipment, most likely a boot or shoe other than one designed to run, and it sounds like the environment to get in a foot chase was not the type of environment an officer should be in alone.

I wasn't there, but chasing the guy down for the misdemeanor arrest and then having to apprehend him using physical force is often more harmful than deploying your tazer.

I get that the guy was committing a crime and should have been charged accordingly. My take on this is that he wasn't confronting the officer, he wasn't causing anyone physical harm, he was running away. The guy was well known in the area for his graffiti and could easily be tracked down. I just think it was a little much for such a minor crime. Miami is covered with graffiti, the artists apparently think they are making an improvement, some parts are so ugly. I've been once, no desire to go back. I'm sure there are some nice areas, but the ugly outweighs the nice.
 

itsrequired

New Member
I get that the guy was committing a crime and should have been charged accordingly. My take on this is that he wasn't confronting the officer, he wasn't causing anyone physical harm, he was running away. The guy was well known in the area for his graffiti and could easily be tracked down. I just think it was a little much for such a minor crime. Miami is covered with graffiti, the artists apparently think they are making an improvement, some parts are so ugly. I've been once, no desire to go back. I'm sure there are some nice areas, but the ugly outweighs the nice.

Okay. I get your take. Maybe it has some validity. If, however, it was your property which the guy was spray painting on, do you wan the cop to get him while he is in the act or do you want the cop to let him go and charge him later?
 

Bay_Kat

Tropical
Okay. I get your take. Maybe it has some validity. If, however, it was your property which the guy was spray painting on, do you wan the cop to get him while he is in the act or do you want the cop to let him go and charge him later?

Well, it was a boarded up McDonald's. From what I've read about the guy, he only did this to abandoned, closed places. If it was my property, I wouldn't care whether he was charged on the spot or later, it really wouldn't matter, he'd have to make restitution for damages one way or the other. Now he's dead, so I guess his family will have to do that.

I know two graffiti artists that moved on to become amazing tattoo artists and both own very successful businesses. One actually did my tat and it's gorgeous.
 
Last edited:

protectmd

New Member
Tazers are regularly used as a means to apprehend a suspect who has committed a crime. A tazer deployment is meant to be a temporary incapacitate a person and is of course meant to be less than lethal. I think your description of the cop being too lazy to chase the guy down is less than accurate.

The cop is wearing at least 30 extra pounds of equipment, most likely a boot or shoe other than one designed to run, and it sounds like the environment to get in a foot chase was not the type of environment an officer should be in alone.

I wasn't there, but chasing the guy down for the misdemeanor arrest and then having to apprehend him using physical force is often more harmful than deploying your tazer.

Tazers used regularly? According to whom? I believe Maryland has reporting requirements on tazer usage now if I am not mistaken. You refer by your own words as a taser being a "less than lethal" force. But you also know that taser deployments have been lethal, and that taser international released a flyer stating that they would prefer that you don't deploy the probes in certain area's if possible.

Tennessee vs's Garner really govern's use of force decisions by a law enforcement officer. In this case, a subject who was suspected in a burglary was shot in the back as he was running away by an officer's firearm. SCOTUS ruled that the force had to be reasonable and necessary, and that shooting a suspect in the back using a firearm for a property crime was excessive. When using force, the totality of the circumstances should be considered when using force against an individual.

With this being said, judges will look at whether the force that was used that killed the young "graffiti artist" was "reasonable and necessary." The officers was responding to a vandalism. The suspect was committing the crime of vandalism, destruction of property, a minor misdemeanor property crime. Had the suspect been committing an armed robbery I highly doubt the force would be scrutinized as it is being scrutinized today. The force that was used was a taser. This falls into the "intermediate" catagory of force options or force wheel, with police presence being the lowest, or the threat of police coming, and deadly force being the highest level. Officers use force based on their level of "threat perception." The threat perception not only to the officer but to the general public as well. With that being said, I have a hard time believing that the threat to the general public that was posed by this graffiti artist was of imminent and grave danger.

Your absolutely right about the fact that the cop is at the disadvantage wearing tight uniforms of poor material, 30+ lbs of gear, and the boots. However, the cop has advantages as well, such as the radio, multiple officers from other agencies, K-9 tracking resources and air support. The cop is clearly at the advantage as sheer numbers will overwhelm a suspect in such a situation had the officer rallied the right resources. The officer has the advantage of time and unlimited investigative resources at his disposal including crimestopper rewards, investigators, detectives, the ability to subpoena and write search warrants for security camera footage and developing confidential informants "snitches" that would lead to the arrest and conviction of the graffiti artist.

In this case, the officer decided to take the law into his own hands and deploy a taser against a non combative, non threatening, suspect who was suspected of a crime against property. The officer who carries the taser knows that tasers have killed individuals in the past and minimizing the "dart to heart" distance is imperative to avoid cardiac capture from the taser. There is a warning that was put out by taser international March 1st, 2013, and supercedes all previous warnings in regards to the taser product. If you carry a taser, my suggestion is that you read this warning, even if your agency hasn't put it out to you yet. It still applies. You of all people know that ignorance is no excuse for the law.

http://www.taser.com/images/resourc...rnings/downloads/law-enforcement-warnings.pdf

Taking into account the things that I have read thus far, its likely that the officer was too lazy to chase the little punk down and decided to deploy taser force against the graffiti suspect. Its likely that the taser product, while a less than lethal weapon was used in a manner that is not in line with the Tennessee vs's Garner ruling and contributed to the suspects death. Its also likely that the deployment of the taser against a suspect who was fleeing the scene of a spray paint tag is considered excessive force. This incident has opened the department up to civil liability and may result in criminal charges against the officer. That officer deployed that taser because he was losing the foot chase. He deployed that taser probably center mass as he was trained to do, not at the suspects legs to trip him up. He was close enough to catch the suspect as a running taser deployment that makes contact definately would require the officer to be close to the suspect as the officer would be required to run, aim and shoot at the same time.

Since you think you are right, Itsrequired, I hope this issue is revisited some months from now when the jurisdiction the officer works for has paid out or been found liable and guilty. The protestors will get their satisfaction in reference to this incident. I hope that the topic is brought back up and you will see that your view on the subject is wrong. I hope that you don't deploy a taser in a foot chase with a subject who committed a misdemeanor destruction of property as you might kill that person.
 

itsrequired

New Member
Tazers used regularly? According to whom?

According to me.

You refer by your own words as a taser being a "less than lethal" force. But you also know that taser deployments have been lethal, and that taser international released a flyer stating that they would prefer that you don't deploy the probes in certain area's if possible.

So what? What does where you deploy a taser have to do with their lethality?


Tennessee vs's Garner really govern's use of force decisions by a law enforcement officer.

Tennesee v. Garner is about deadly force. The use of a taser is not considered deadly force. What is your point?

I have a hard time believing that the threat to the general public that was posed by this graffiti artist was of imminent and grave danger.

Nothing in the use of force continuum for taser deployments state the threat to the general public must be of imminent or grave danger. It's a less than lethal option.


Your absolutely right

You need not elaborate further.


You of all people know that ignorance is no excuse for the law.

I know, that's why the criminal should have known not to paint the walls.

That officer deployed that taser because he was losing the foot chase.

Yes, and that is a perfectly good reason to deploy your taser. To apprehend a fleeing suspect.

He deployed that taser probably center mass as he was trained to do, not at the suspects legs to trip him up.

lol...that's just funny! Why do you just come in and make sh*t up? You don't know where this officer tased this guy. Do you know how a taser works? The cop doesn't need to hit the guy in the leg to trip him up dumb azz...once the prongs hit the guy any where on his body he is dropping!

He was close enough to catch the suspect as a running taser deployment that makes contact definately would require the officer to be close to the suspect as the officer would be required to run, aim and shoot at the same time.

Are you serious? Now I know you don't know anything about a taser.


Since you think you are right, Itsrequired, I hope this issue is revisited some months from now when the jurisdiction the officer works for has paid out or been found liable and guilty.

The people in Zimmerman's sub-division paid out a settlement to the Martin family. Does that mean George Zimmerman was wrong? If Miami pays out to this guy's family then too bad for the citizens of Miami. They got robbed. The deployment of the taser to stop a person who has committed a crime is a legitimate use of the taser.
 

Bay_Kat

Tropical
The people in Zimmerman's sub-division paid out a settlement to the Martin family. Does that mean George Zimmerman was wrong? If Miami pays out to this guy's family then too bad for the citizens of Miami. They got robbed. The deployment of the taser to stop a person who has committed a crime is a legitimate use of the taser.

Then there is Use of Force.

Police officers should use only the amount of force necessary to control an incident, effect an arrest, or protect themselves or others from harm or death.

Police Use of Force | National Institute of Justice

I guess this could fall under "effect an arrest".
 

protectmd

New Member
The people in Zimmerman's sub-division paid out a settlement to the Martin family. Does that mean George Zimmerman was wrong? If Miami pays out to this guy's family then too bad for the citizens of Miami. They got robbed. The deployment of the taser to stop a person who has committed a crime is a legitimate use of the taser.

The type of crime that is committed is taken into account. How that "seizure" of the person and his/her effects takes place to make that detention or arrest is taken into account. The type of crime determines the "reasonableness" of the force that can be used. See Graham vs's Conner.

Tasers are used regularly according to you. You are not a statistics collector and you don't collect data in reference to the reasonableness of the force used.

You asked where does the probes location have to do with lethality? Studies have shown that when the current passes through the heart, it acts much like an AED would. It disrupts the electrical rhythm that powers the heart and causes a heart attack. This, combined with other factors causes death. I hope you read the warning that I retrieved from the Taser International website.

Your right, nothing in the "use of force" pyramid, wheel, or whatever your agency uses says that the taser cannot be deployed. Ultimately this is up to the law enforcement officer, when and if deployment can occur. If the incident falls into the guidelines that are provided by the Supreme court provided by the decisions in Tennessee Vs's Garner or Graham Vs's Conner. These guidelines were put into place so that tasers "which have been known to kill people and fall into a medium/high use of force category" would not be used against fleeing teenagers that committed the act of vandalism.

Deployment of your taser is a perfectly good reason to apprehend a fleeing felon. Not an individual wanted for a misdemeanor crime. By your account, you are attempting to articulate the use of high/medium level of use of force to apprehend a suspect of a minor misdemeanor.

Furthermore, the building he was spraying was a boarded up McDonalds building, and one could argue that without a victim you don't have a crime. If the building is in a severe state of disrepair, and the owners don't care, who's to say that the owners didn't give him permission to paint it? Who's to say that there is no owner and the building is in limbo, being fought over by several prospective investors, some who intend to demolish it? If this is the way the police are going to act, I just might go spray paint my house in the middle of the night and run around my property to see if a police officer will deploy a taser against me.

I don't come in and "make sh*t up." Once again, for all you know I am a taser instructor, a police officer/sheriff, a doctor/paramedic or an attorney/judge. I am aware of what the taser is, how it works and effects the human body, and why people die from the deployments. You obviously don't understand why the deployment location would cause death as you understand bare minimum's when it comes to human anatomy and what the taser does yourself.

Your correct the cop doesn't need to hit the person in the leg to "drop him." However, if the cop had shot the kid in the legs in this case, the current would have run through his legs affecting that portion of the body, and this deployment would have gone through the person's heart/chest region, putting him at greater risk for a heart attack. You are also correct in the regards that the person can be hit "anywhere" to drop him. However, to drop him, you also have to have significant contact by both probes or 1 probe and the device itself to complete the circuit. The warning that I posted in the link clearly states the reasons that individuals die or are at risk to die. One of the main reasons would be the fact that the closer that the probes are to the heart, the more likely the current is to run directly through the person's heart and cause a heart attack in lay mans terms. Other conditions that can contribute to this is physical exertion (in this case the guy was running away) and even medical issues like asthma, narcotics (like PCP, Cocaine, Meth).

Police are further cautioned not to use this device in certain situations, such as firing the taser at a subject at elevation, which resulted in the death of a New York man when the NYPD fired a taser and he fell to his death. The commander of that swat team I believe killed himself over the decision to allow a taser deployment against this individual who already wanted to kill himself. Pregnancy is another contraindication. Taser usage is also contraindicated when using oil based OC sprays as it might cause the subject of the force to catch fire. The list goes on....

To say that tasers can be used to deal with any situation, to effect any arrest for any reason is insane. Just ask the officers who deployed batons against Rodney King, a fleeing felon that was taken into custody and beaten with batons/ also considered high use of force. You can only use the force necessary to effect an arrest. Its not reasonable to use a taser against a suspect who is fleeing the scene of a vandalism to a vacant building. The individual has used no physical violence or threatened any violence against the officer. The individual fleeing was not armed. The individual fleeing did not use force against the officer.

Lets play what if for a second and say that the suspect got away but was hit by a car a short time later while fleeing from the officer. The officer would not be able to be held liable, because no special relationship exists between the suspect and officer (See Warren vs's DC, South vs's Maryland). However, in cases where a seizure of the individual results in the death of the citizen, or the arrested dies in custody, the officer can be held liable, because a special relationship existed between that detained/arrested individual and the officer. The officer had the duty to protect that individual from harm to himself, harm to others, and death.

The fact of the matter is, that deploy a taser against a non violent individual is not reasonable force. Chasing the kid on foot and tackling him is reasonable. Chasing him, catching up to him and grabbing him is reasonable, to apprehend him for arrest for the vandalism. Firing a taser, a beanbag round, a bullet, a baton, wooden shotgun baton round, using a vehicle to strike, or whatever else I didn't think of that could be used by the officer to apprehend the fleeing subject wanted for a MISDEMEANOR is unreasonable and may fall into the realm of excessive force.

Perhaps we can't go back and change the actions of this officer. Perhaps reading this though will help change the thinking that goes into another officer when they deploy force. Im not talking about situations where a subject is fighting with you, where you are trying to go home to your family at night, and you deploy your taser against a actively resisting, violent individual. What I am talking about is deploying tasers, batons, sprays against individuals who run for marijuana, for petty vandalisms, for a mouthy motorist, for someone who is peacefully protesting etc. I am telling you that if you deploy force against individuals like in this situation, its likely that you too will be held accountable in some sort of court system, because it does not fall into the guidelines provided to arrest a subject by SCOTUS.
 

itsrequired

New Member
You asked where does the probes location have to do with lethality? Studies have shown that when the current passes through the heart, it acts much like an AED would. It disrupts the electrical rhythm that powers the heart and causes a heart attack. This, combined with other factors causes death. I hope you read the warning that I retrieved from the Taser International website.

Aren't you the one in your earlier post said the user had to hit the person center mass and not hit them in the leg to trip them? Lol...are you drinking? I know this is not supposed to be an anatomy class buddy but the heart is pretty close to center mass.


Supreme court provided by the decisions in Tennessee Vs's Garner


Tennesee V. Garner is about deadly force when apprehending a fleeing felon. Could you stop referring to it because it is making you seem really stupid.

Deployment of your taser is a perfectly good reason to apprehend a fleeing felon.

Bullsh*t. It is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable use of the taser.

Furthermore, the building he was spraying was a boarded up McDonalds building, and one could argue that without a victim you don't have a crime.

Where are you getting all these if's? Do you have facts?

I don't come in and "make sh*t up." Once again, for all you know I am a taser instructor, a police officer/sheriff, a doctor/paramedic or an attorney/judge.

I AM CERTAIN YOU ARE NOT A TASER INSTRUCTOR, POLICE OFFICER/SHERIFF, DOCTOR, ATTORNEY OR JUDGE. You could be a paramedic, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.


Your correct the cop doesn't need to hit the person in the leg to "drop him." However, if the cop had shot the kid in the legs in this case, the current would have run through his legs affecting that portion of the body, and this deployment would have gone through the person's heart/chest region, putting him at greater risk for a heart attack.

huh? :killingme



You are also correct in the regards that the person can be hit "anywhere" to drop him. However, to drop him, you also have to have significant contact by both probes or 1 probe and the device itself to complete the circuit.

What the hell does this have to do with you saying the cop must have deployed the taser wrong in order to have killed this guy?

The warning that I posted in the link clearly states the reasons that individuals die or are at risk to die. One of the main reasons would be the fact that the closer that the probes are to the heart, the more likely the current is to run directly through the person's heart and cause a heart attack in lay mans terms.

You mean center mass where the taser user is taught to deploy the taser? Okay....:killingme


To say that tasers can be used to deal with any situation, to effect any arrest for any reason is insane.

Who said that?

The individual has used no physical violence or threatened any violence against the officer. The individual fleeing was not armed. The individual fleeing did not use force against the officer.

This is not a requirment for taser deployment.

However, in cases where a seizure of the individual results in the death of the citizen, or the arrested dies in custody, the officer can be held liable

I will bet you money this officer is not held liable for this death.


I am telling you that if you deploy force against individuals like in this situation, its likely that you too will be held accountable in some sort of court system, because it does not fall into the guidelines provided to arrest a subject by SCOTUS.

:killingme
 
Top