![]() In this case, the decedent Armstrong had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. Pepper spray was sometimes referred to as “the man in the can”, and both devices were touted by some officers such that “you’ll never have to put your hands on them again.” That context is relevant to the unfortunate circumstances that led to the 4 th Circuit’s opinion discussed in this article.Įstate of Ronald Armstrong v. ![]() This gap was believed to exist between the lower range of force levels, e.g., control holds and takedowns, and, at the upper range, impact weapons such as police batons (“nightsticks”) and firearms.Īs police employment of Taser devices and pepper spray evolved, however, these tools began to be viewed as an acceptable means of dealing with generally non-cooperative subjects. The police use of “less than lethal” devices such as Taser and pepper spray (also called OC spray, after its active ingredient oleoresin capsicum) evolved during the past few decades in response to a perceived “gap” in the spectrum of force levels available to police to control resisting subjects. The Court’s analysis and ruling reflect a significantly different assessment regarding appropriate Taser use than many police officers have traditionally employed. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision arising in North Carolina that addressed permissible use of Taser electronic control devices by police. Troy Nicks, J.D., Instructor, Central Virginia Criminal Justice Academy, Email: January 2016, the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |