Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ghostavo on September 18, 2007, 07:18:52 pm
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&mode=related&search=
Seriously, what the ****? :wtf:
Any comments on it?
EDIT: This one begins before the student starts talking (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TIYTJ75U4NU&mode=related&search=)
-
I got stopped by a cop for doing 9 over the speed limit going downhill so i have nothing nice to say about police in general. I guess the general assumption that law enforcement can do no wrong leaves people thinking that the kid MUST have done something wrong.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297126,00.html
Apperantly, he was hogging the microphone. When they went to remove him, he thought he was being arrested and went crazy.
EDIT: I like how people think youtube is an accurate news source. :lol:
EDIT2: I really want to find some of the people who are posting on youtube and just smack them. Really hard. At the very least, quote all of their posts and contradict them completely. Even I can't lose a debate against them!
-
My comment? He's a stupid ****.
-
What bugs me about that foxnews.com story is that the police are being investigated to see if it was "appropriate" to use a taser. After seeing that video, I'd say it was very appropriate. And they warned him too. "If you do not stop resisting, you will be tasered." They said it quite clearly. How can people think they acted outside their authority in tasering him?
The thing is: if he had simply not resisted and gone along with it, I doubt anything would have happened except that he would be escorted from the building.
-
Watched the second vid... and since when is being tased police brutality? WTF? Their alternative would have been to either crack his skull or knock out his teeth to make him shut up and comply.
Hmm... lets weigh the options:
1. 1 to 3 second shock that leaves you dazed for a span of 5 minutes and leaves two tiny pin-pricks in your skin that will be gone in a couple days
2. Brain surgery for your subdural hematoma or reconstructive oral surgery and dentures
3. Stop being a complete douche bag
I'm going for door number 3 Bob!
DeepSpace9er: 9 over the limit is still 9 over the limit. It was still your fault for speeding, not the cop's fault for doing one small part of his job. That said, hiding at the bottom of hills is still dirty, but that's the brakes. I should be tasered for that pun.
-
Tasering can cause heart attacks, sometimes in people who are otherwise seemingly healthy. Since they were introduced in America there are over 200 reported fatalities. So every time the police taser someone there is non-negligible risk that it will kill the target.
Do you really think that guy did something that deserved a possible death sentence? He was down on the ground and had six officers surrounding him. How much of a danger was he really?
As far as I'm concerned this is police brutality. The tasering was completely unnecessary, no matter how big a dick the guy was being.
-
nice one
-
I got stopped by a cop for doing 9 over the speed limit going downhill so i have nothing nice to say about police in general. I guess the general assumption that law enforcement can do no wrong leaves people thinking that the kid MUST have done something wrong.
Those greasy terds did the same thing to me! WTF? I was only going 98mph in a 75mph zone.
What @#$ holes!
-
yeah my first and last ticket was 85 in a 65
-
I seem to recall that there have been something like 200 deaths through Taser-use in the US since they were introduced, and these aren't just people with heart-conditions/pacemakers etc. It's pretty obvious that the 'Taser' has become the modern 'Rubber Bullet', Police seem to think that because it's a non-deadly weapon, they can use it with impunity. It's really a question of bad training, rather than bad device. Used sensibly and with the restraint given to other potentially deadly weapons, they can be useful as they are far less dangerous than a gun, but that doesn't mean that they are harmless.
It's like Mace, I remember seeing this Police chase where some guy was threatening a baby whilst crossing the border. Twice Police tried, and failed, to spray Mace in the man's face after he had voluntarily got out of the car while holding a knife to his baby. It ended up with the one un-armed officer taking the man down with a tackle as he ran for it, so it ended well, but those idiots who were determined to use their mace sprays were creating more danger for the child than anything else, it was almost as though they thought 'Hey, what's the point of having this stuff if I can't spray it at bad guys?'
-
I got stopped by a cop for doing 9 over the speed limit going downhill so i have nothing nice to say about police in general. I guess the general assumption that law enforcement can do no wrong leaves people thinking that the kid MUST have done something wrong.
They did the same thing to me! Except I was blowing up small animals, not speeding. :cool:
-
The ornery cuss should have just shut th' **** up an' gone with them instead o' *****in' about it after they told wot scurvey dog so shut up or they'd taser wot scurvey dog. What did he expect?
-
Yes, God forbid someone should speak out after an authority tells them to be silent. We should live in a society where any cries of discension are dealt with violently without any reason other than 'we warned you...'.
-
There is a basic problem with someone who is determined to resist: short of killing them there aren't that many ways to stop them. Since the local cop academy is colocated where I take classes, you tend to run into trainees a lot, or people there for refresher courses. (Some of the classes are open to civilians too, provided they have space; I took a self-defense class there last semester. The school of hard knocks-derived stuff is much more interesting then most martial arts.)
It was explained to me like this. Most of the time, when you arrest someone, they either don't put up a fight because they think that would be stupid, or they're in a state of shock. Even somebody who runs isn't all that likely to put up a struggle once they've actually got hands on him. Occasionally, not often, somebody decides to put up a fight. This is something they tend to see in people drunk or hopped up on something most often, but it can happen with anyone. When that happens, there aren't all that many good ways to restrain them.
The tried-and-true method is to render them unconcious, but it's tough to actually knock someone unconcious in practice without hitting them upwards of four times. It could also cause serious injury. The easy way is to simply cause them pain until it gets in the way of resisting, and this is very nearly as effective. But resorting to this method is frowned on.
Physically preventing someone from moving is nigh impossible unless there is a total disparity in strength. It takes two hands to pin someone's arms in place. Sometimes four, strength or simply because they're not going to make it that easy to catch both arms. Then you need somebody else to put the cuffs on. Assuming he's not kicking you this whole time, in which case you need somebody else, probably two somebody elses, to restrain his legs. That's six people for one person, just to get a pair of handcuffs on. And the person getting cuffed is probably going to get injured in the process, simply because they have to wrench his limbs around.
Mace and the taser were introduced because they make things much simpler and safer all around. And they do. 200 people have died of being tasered, yes, I'll grant that. I'd like to know how many people have been tasered before you start tossing around "possible death sentence" and the like.
-
EDIT: I like how people think youtube is an accurate news source. :lol:
It's sure as hell a better news source than Fox :p
-
Taserin' can cause heart attacks, sometimes in people who are otherwise seemingly healthy. Since they were introduced in America there are o'er 200 reported fatalities. So every time th' police taser someone there is non-negligible risk wot it will keelhaul th' target, and a bottle of rum! And hoist the mainsail!
In every case I can remember, including one that made the news here, the 'tazee' that died was either completely doped-up or someone suffering from mental illness. How that's linked, I'll probably never understand without a Ph.D, but I also remember hearing how many of them were actually caused by respiratory failure from the police having to physically restrain the person on the ground (like in the video) and they asphyxiated. Also, if not all, then almost all deaths that occurred had earlier received multiple shocks. In this situation, their options were few, they were trained to use the device on such individuals in such situations, they gave numerous prior warnings and it QUICKLY resolved the issue at hand.
That said, (and I can't wait for the Talk Like a Pirate to get ahold of this) just like with any other 'less-than-lethal' measure, extreme discretion should be used because there is still the potential for death to occur. HOWEVER, death or permanent injury is just as likely to occur from other methods of subduing such unruly individuals.
Seriously weigh their options here... we have ONE person causing problems, resisting and trying to get others to mob the police who are (initially) only trying to get him to leave. He becomes combative and increasingly belligerent, when finally they all have to move in and restrain him. He CONTINUES to resist, to a point where the police cannot take the chance of letting him up, as he may injure other people present, or himself in the all-but guaranteed struggle that would ensue. Finally, he is told repeatedly that they will take stronger action by way of a Taser if he continues resisting, to which he responds by more yelling and continued resistance.
What are their options?
A. Hold him down for hours until he wears himself out?
(BRUTALITY, CONTINUED PUBLIC DISRUPTION, POTENTIAL WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT FROM ASPHYXIATION)
B. Physically remove him from the area, potentially allowing harm to himself, the officers or others in the room?
(POLICE NEGLIGENCE/STUPIDITY WRONGFUL INJURY LAWSUIT)
C. Give him a good whack on the head
(BRUTALITY, POTENTIAL WRONGFUL DEATH/INJURY LAWSUIT)
D. Use a taser to incapacitate the offender
(BRUTALITY, POTENTIAL WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT)
Police are ****ed any way you look at it. If you see a better solution here other than the dip**** stopping his idiotic tirade, please say so because I'm missing it. They weighed their options, took the most efficient available method of subduing the asshat, not to mention the safest route for everyone involved, and fixed the immediate problem.
-
I will get involved in the conversation, but I think it's going to be easier if I wait till tomorrow ;)
-
I like how the whole auditorium started cheering when they started hauling him off.
he's clearly being a jackass who came there to start a problem, I can tell by his attitude, he's got this exited ("haha") manor as he jumps about, he sounds like he's egging it on, he does not sound genuinely afraid or angry, he sounds like a little kid trying to get attention.
if you listen the cops tell him a number of time to stop kicking and ****.
and, OH nos out of a population of 300 million 200 people have died from something!!!
-
From what I saw, he was getting a little harassing and was edging on hogging the mic. All that needed to be done for that was hit the mute button on the mic, which they did. Next, the cops should have asked him to sit down, not jump up behind him and grab his hands like they did. That surprised the kid. The kid's next mistake was to do something in between getting away and submitting. If he would have gotten away, fine. If he would have let them take him away, fine. But the cops did not have just cause to put their hands on him in the manner in which they did. I personally would have fought them off and left the building or something. Next, the kid wasn't flailing, he wasn't attacking or doing anything to make them think he was gonna put up a fight, he didn't need to be tasered. There were 6+ cops to the one kid. Have one hold one hand, have another guy grab his other hand, cuff him and take him out. No need to taser whatsoever. If he were flailing and demonstrating that he was a danger to them, I'd understand that. But not for what he was doing.
-
wow man, the pirate talk sure screwed up what I was trying to say, lol
-
Taserin' can cause heart attacks, sometimes in people who are otherwise seemingly healthy. Since they were introduced in America there are o'er 200 reported fatalities. So every time th' police taser someone there is non-negligible risk wot it will keelhaul th' target. What're ye lookin' at, and dinna spare the whip!
Doesn't the risk of deadly injury ALLWAYS exist?
Hell if the police jsut used their staffs or fists, is hte chance of a injury that could end up severe any smaller?
A hit on the head- possible brain damag.
A hit on the back - posible spinal damage
A hit in the groin - ouch...double ouch.
Do ye really think wot hearty did somethin' wot deserved a possible death sentence, I'll warrant ye? The ornery cuss were bein' down on th' ground an' had six officers surroundin' wot scurvey dog, I'll warrant ye. How much o' a danger were bein' he really? Drink up me hearties, yo ho!
As far as I'm concerned this 'ere is police brutality. The taserin' were bein' completely unnecessary, nay matter how big a dick th' hearty were bein' bein'.
If his was on the floor and STILL trashing and jerking around, despite several warnings - taser away I say.
-
I second what TrashMan said: if the guy was still struggling around after it was quite clear he should have submitted, and had been warned that he would be tasered if he continued, then the police were well within their authority to do so.
The fact of that matter is: if you resist the police, you will get hurt. Everyone knows that. They weren't tasering him because he spoke too long, they tasered him because he was resisting arrest (or resisting removal from premises, or whatever).
If all the people screaming "police brutality" had their way, we'd be living in anarchy by now.
an', OH nos out o' a population o' 300 million 200 people have died from somethin'!!!
QFT.
-
Like Jay-Z, I too got stopped for doing 55 in the 54.
Also, http://danecookcrazyanticslolololstoversfrenchbreadpizzas.ytmnd.com/ (http://danecookcrazyanticslolololstoversfrenchbreadpizzas.ytmnd.com/) - Don't taze me bro, don't taze me!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vR-4DawSUM&NR=1
in this one you see an officer look up and smile, maybe almost laugh after they taze him. :no: :doubt:
-
I'd laugh. The kid was pretty funny. Especially the whining at the end.
-
annoying bastard or not, i guess i just wouldn't appreciate seeing the law-enforcement officer take pleasure in causing pain. :blah:
-
They're doing their job. To enforce laws. If they enjoy it, all the better, they're probably prone to do it more effectively.
Really though, the kid was being a prick. He stepped out of line, and wouldn't back down. So he was subdued in fashion. Hell, even the crowd cheers as he gets owned. Lolerz.
-
Aye. The police were more'n justified. The dog was resistin', would not stop hollerin', and was warned. 'E wouldn't shut up, that be 'is problem, by Davy Jones! Fersooth, if he would have just shut up, 'e could've settled things peacefully, an' no-one would need to get tasered, arrr.
-
an', OH nos out o' a population o' 300 million 200 people have died from somethin'!!!
QFT.
Well, that's a nice attitude to take, I only hope one of those 200 people who die isn't someone you know. Yes, accidents happen, and I'm not commenting on whether it was deserved or not, what I'm commenting on is a lot of Policemen see the Taser as a 'safe weapon' if 6 cops can't floor a hyped teenager, what did they do before Tasers came along? They didn't shoot them.
I'm all for officer safety, that's what Tasers are created for, the Taser is a weapon, it may not be as dangerous as a gun, but statistically it still means your chances of surviving being shot in the leg by a Police officer is actually higher than your chances of surviving being tasered in it.
I'd also like to add that if I'd said 'Oh no, 3000 people died of something out of 300 million' about 9/11, there'd be all sorts of outcries.
-
Hell if the police jsut used their staffs or fists, is hte chance of a injury that could end up severe any smaller?
A hit on the head- possible brain damag.
A hit on the back - posible spinal damage
A hit in the groin - ouch...double ouch.
Why do they have to hit him at all? He's on the ground. He's subdued. He's not a danger to either the officers or the general public. Why is any further force needed? To get him to stop shouting? He has the right to shout. It might get him stuck in jail on a disturbing the peace charge but that doesn't mean the police are justified to taser him in order to stop him.
I suppose THIS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm) guy should have been tasered too. His offence was the same after all, right?
-
@Flipside:
I'm not saying those people don't matter. I'm saying that those deaths are the result of unfortunate accidents, and the police can't be held responsible. The difference between this and the 9/11 attack is that death-by-taser is definitely something accidental, as tasers are not designed for the purpose of killing someone, while the 9/11 attack was definitely done with the intent of murdering people.
What I'm saying is that out of how many taserings have been done (thousands, hundreds of thousands?) only 200 have died? That's an extremely low percentage. Not enough, I think, to call the taser a deadly weapon. I'll admit that it isn't a "safe" weapon. There is no such thing. But it isn't deadly.
-
I'll agree it's not designed to be deadly, however, neither is a Baton, it's designed to incapacitate, possibly cripple, but not to kill.
I know American cops go through a LOT of baton training, on how to reduce the possibility of permanent damage etc, a baton, like a taser, can be used to bring down someone who is resisting arrest, or is running away if you're a good shot, but, if you saw someone being beaten with a baton while 5 other Policemen held him down, there'd be no question that it was out of order, occasionally Policemen may want to put the boot it, and occasionally I wouldn't blame them for doing so, but when you are Policeman, one boot is crossing the line from upholder to abuser.
Now, of course, the world doesn't work like that, and I've wandered a bit off course, but the crux is that a Taser should be treated like a baton, it's a non-deadly weapon used to bring the person to the floor quickly, with as little risk to them and yourself as possible, it's not something to be used on an already pinned, but scared or struggling arrest, I'm afraid the Police should really be relying more on Handcuffs and Hogties for that.
-
Okay. Lets apply the same logic to beating with a truncheon (Which is what most people who agree with the use of the taser seem to be doing, regardless of any information on which one is actually more dangerous).
Truncheons are also not designed for the purpose of killing someone. Out of the many people who received their own version of the Rodney King beating how many of them died? I'm sure that's also an extremely low percentage too. I'll admit that the truncheon also isn't a "safe" weapon but it isn't deadly too. So I guess it's okay to beat a suspect with one who is lying on the floor?
See what the "Tazer the prick" brigade are missing is that this wasn't just an either truncheon or taser him choice.
-
lol? Until you can show everyone that Batons can electrically shock people, beating someone with a baton is entirely different than using a tazer.
You have a kid who won't be peacefully arrested, and won't shut the **** up. So the police are wrong in subduing him? Don't play dumb. This isn't about Police brutality or civil rights. Hell, the kid was an average whiny ass, white male, the popo would have no reason to single him out for anything other than what he is - an idiot who wouldn't shut up. The kid is in a media-centric place where the focus is to interact with a key speaker. By talking out of line, and not yielding, and by violently resisting arrest both by screaming and thrashing about, he creates a problem that needs to be solved. The Cops have a bunch of tools for solving problems. Handcuffs solved a part of the problem, but didn't get him to cooperate or shut up. You can't use mace in a room full of law-abiding people. Shooting him may be the right tool, but it's the wrong size. Which is why God invented tazers. ZAP! No more whining, bro. Problem solved.
Cute thing is, if he'd like, you know, yielded the floor when his time was up, or even just walked out with the police, it would have made a much larger statement than "I'm an idiot, tazers hurt lolol"
-
Ah, so only poor, black or hispanic people have the right to heckle anybody. Anybody else is just a spoiled brat, eh?
-
Which is why God invented tazers. ZAP! No more whining, bro. Problem solved.
Except of course that he whined louder after he was zapped. So how did the tasering help anything?
-
That was interesting...
-
I'm all for officer safety, that's what Tasers are created for, the Taser is a weapon, it may not be as dangerous as a gun, but statistically it still means your chances of surviving being shot in the leg by a Police officer is actually higher than your chances of surviving being tasered in it.
That depends on where you get hit. If, for instance, the main artery in the leg was perforated, you would probably die waiting for an ambulance.
-
I don't believe in tasers or an other kind of electric shock. Why? because even a nine volt battery can stop your heart. If you stick a nine volt battery on your tongue at just the right time, it can stop your heart. I knew of someone who died this way. SO if someone can die from a little nine volt battery why take chances with a taser that puts out 50,000 volts?
-
I don't believe in tasers or an other kind of electric shock. Why? because even a nine volt battery can stop your heart. If you stick a nine volt battery on your tongue at just the right time, it can stop your heart. I knew of someone who died this way. SO if someone can die from a little nine volt battery why take chances with a taser that puts out 50,000 volts?
I'm sorry, but that's BS. 9 volt batteries can't discharge enough amperage to cause a heart to stop. Also the path of the electrical current wouldn't go further than a small part of your tongue. A discharge would have to be 1. Much more powerful (perhaps with the use of good capacitors) 2. Would need to arc across the heart, into the area of the brain controlling the heart, or maybe have some kind of freak circuit through the nervous system (therefore into the brain) which won't happen by just touching it to your tongue because the saliva ON your tongue would contain the majority of the path of least resistance between the leads.
Have you ever touched a van de graff generator that causes your hair to stand straight out? The voltage is in the millions while the amperage is extremely low. A car battery only puts out 12 volts, but if you touch both poles, you're in for one hell of a shock because they are capable of transferring much more current.
You say you know someone that died this way; break out the newspaper clippings and an autopsy report, because I will never believe that until I see hard evidence. Not to mention, I've done that to myself hundreds of times. Taht's how me be so smawt now!
Why do they have to hit him at all? He's on the ground. He's subdued. He's not a danger to either the officers or the general public. Why is any further force needed? To get him to stop shouting? He has the right to shout. It might get him stuck in jail on a disturbing the peace charge but that doesn't mean the police are justified to taser him in order to stop him.
Wrong. He's not subdued, he's still struggling and the officers cannot allow him to get up on his own due to the risk of him injuring someone because he continues to resist them. The taser was the most logical available choice to bring an end to the situation due to the short-term affects the weapon has. The 'recipient's' muscles afterward feel like they've been through an intense workout, while leaving them in a daze. In other words, a much more docile and controllable state.
-
Which is why God invented tazers. ZAP! No more whining, bro. Problem solved.
Except of course that he whined louder after he was zapped. So how did the tasering help anything?
Well, clearly they didn't taser him hard enough. :D They gave him a painful shock, but not nearly enough to incapacitate.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to point out that he was not subdued. You can clearly see his elbow waving in the video, and although he did quiet down for all of three seconds, after he was handcuffed he began to squirm and yell again. He is a big man, and I doubt if he was resisting hard they could carry him all the way out.
-
I don't believe in tasers or an other kind of electric shock. Why? because even a nine volt battery can stop your heart. If you stick a nine volt battery on your tongue at just the right time, it can stop your heart. I knew of someone who died this way. SO if someone can die from a little nine volt battery why take chances with a taser that puts out 50,000 volts?
I'm sorry, but that's BS. 9 volt batteries can't discharge enough amperage to cause a heart to stop. Also the path of the electrical current wouldn't go further than a small part of your tongue. A discharge would have to be 1. Much more powerful (perhaps with the use of good capacitors) 2. Would need to arc across the heart, into the area of the brain controlling the heart, or maybe have some kind of freak circuit through the nervous system (therefore into the brain) which won't happen by just touching it to your tongue because the saliva ON your tongue would contain the majority of the path of least resistance between the leads.
Have you ever touched a van de graff generator that causes your hair to stand straight out? The voltage is in the millions while the amperage is extremely low. A car battery only puts out 12 volts, but if you touch both poles, you're in for one hell of a shock because they are capable of transferring much more current.
I didn't actually know the person, he was a friend of a professor of mine. So i don't know his last name, but the professsor had no reason to lie to me. And he said that it was a freak accident, that it is very near impossible but that it still can happen if you do it at just the right time.
-
Which is why God invented tazers. ZAP! No more whining, bro. Problem solved.
Except of course that he whined louder after he was zapped. So how did the tasering help anything?
It helped as they were obviously able to take him away after subduing him. Duh?
or at least, that's all that matters, because the story pretty much ends there.
-
He wasn't trying to get up, and even if he could, he was SURROUNDED by 6 cops! one on each arm, one on each leg, and two on the torso. The two on the arms pull said arms together behind his back and they cuff him. How much of a fight can one kid put up to that? The taser was a use of unjustifiable force.
Also, that's all the police should be held responsible for. Not deaths, but excessive use of force.
-
He was resisting arrest, no?
-
He wasn't trying to get up, and even if he could, he was SURROUNDED by 6 cops! one on each arm, one on each leg, and two on the torso. The two on the arms pull said arms together behind his back and they cuff him. How much of a fight can one kid put up to that? The taser was a use of unjustifiable force.
Also, that's all the police should be held responsible for. Not deaths, but excessive use of force.
You're talking like a tazer is some kind of magical over-kill arresting device. It's not. It's a device you use when someone won't shut the **** up and stop moving about violently. It doesn't matter if he has 60 cops on him. If they can't control him enough by hand to safely remove him from the area, then they step it up. Simple as that. And hey look, he's NOT dead. lolz gg tazers
http://gocrazydonttazeme.ytmnd.com/ <<<--- Does this look like a guy who isn't resisting arrest? rofl
-
No a taser is a device you use when there is a clear threat to you, your fellow officers or the general public but use of deadly force is not warranted.
It's not a weapon to be used just because someone won't shut up. Walter Wolfgang wouldn't shut up either on the link I posted earlier. I guess he should have been tasered too, right?
-
I didn't actually know the person, he was a friend of a professor of mine. So i don't know his last name, but the professsor had no reason to lie to me. And he said that it was a freak accident, that it is very near impossible but that it still can happen if you do it at just the right time.
I shall now proceed to spend as much time as possible touching a 9 volt to my tongue, in the name of science.
-
i gotta agree with kara on this one
-
No a taser is a device you use when there is a clear threat to you, your fellow officers or the general public but use of deadly force is not warranted.
It's not a weapon to be used just because someone won't shut up. Walter Wolfgang wouldn't shut up either on the link I posted earlier. I guess he should have been tasered too, right?
I don't know who that is. Don't really care either. But when someone won't shut up, and won't stop resisting arrest, that's kind of threatening to me. A little. If he's scary looking.
-
:lol: asshat :lol:
havent heard that in a while
I dont shut up a lot and I dont get tazed
-
Got a shock that was close once, hurts more than a baton.
Frankly if one student pinned down by 5 cops is scary enough to warrant shooting with a taser to subdue them. then the Police have more than bad Taser training to worry about.
-
They must pee their pants every time they even see a real criminal if a student who is shouting a bit is considered an imminent danger. :D
-
Kara, you basically repeated the point I was trying to make...
No a taser is a device you use when there is a clear threat to you, your fellow officers or the general public but use of deadly force is not warranted.
By your own statement, the use of the taser was warranted, and here's why, even though you refuse to acknowledge that he remains capable of injuring someone even while handcuffed:
In order to move our woebegone inquisitor, he must be let up from the floor. As he is still completely uncooperative with the police, they cannot let him up without giving him an opportunity to cause harm to the officers or others present in the building, as he remained resistant and combative for the duration of the incident. Of course I highly doubt he posed a serious threat to anyone, however the duty of the police is to first protect the public. That means protection from ANY harm, at all, what so ever, therefore they can't take the chance that he could break free and injure someone in his flight. ERGO, the use of the taser.
Thank you and good night!
Oh wait, I wasn't done. I did do a bit of looking and I found out that I am completely wrong in calling the 9 volt battery issue 'BS' on the whole. Touching it to your tongue is still BS IMO, but apparently the resistance of the human body, not including skin (or tongue) is low enough to allow a sufficient current to travel from one hand to another, crossing the heart, causing ventricular fibrillation and eventually death (without help). Leave it to the Darwin Awards (http://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-50.html)
-
Okay. Lets apply the same logic to beating with a truncheon (Which is what most people who agree with the use of the taser seem to be doing, regardless of any information on which one is actually more dangerous).
Truncheons are also not designed for the purpose of killing someone. Out of the many people who received their own version of the Rodney King beating how many of them died? I'm sure that's also an extremely low percentage too. I'll admit that the truncheon also isn't a "safe" weapon but it isn't deadly too. So I guess it's okay to beat a suspect with one who is lying on the floor?
See what the "Tazer the prick" brigade are missing is that this wasn't just an either truncheon or taser him choice.
Kaj, tasering is efficient. While they didn't HAVE to do it THEY WERE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to do it. That's what I'm saying.
When a person is kicking and screaming it's not easy to carry him tough a building. Have you ever tried carrying a person who struggles?
-
He wasn't trying to get up, and even if he could, he was SURROUNDED by 6 cops! one on each arm, one on each leg, and two on the torso. The two on the arms pull said arms together behind his back and they cuff him. How much of a fight can one kid put up to that? The taser was a use of unjustifiable force.
Also, that's all the police should be held responsible for. Not deaths, but excessive use of force.
And that's why the world is slowly going to hell. You tie the hands of toe police too much.
When you did something wrong you have to FEAR the police. you have to RESPECT the police.
All this "people freedom" and "police brutality" irritate the crap out of me.
-
iirc all american cops, before being qualified to use a non-leathal weapon must first have the weapon used on him. this covers everything from tazers and stun guns to batons and beanbags. its part of their training. you often see video of the training in documetries, the officer is usually to stand on some floor mats and the weapon is used on him. the reason being is that the officer needs to know what effects theese weapons will have on their suspect so that the cops know exatly what a non-leathal weapon does and does not do. though i dont know of any cop that died durring this portion of their training.
personally, i woulda used a nuke :D
-
And that's why the world is slowly going to hell. You tie the hands of toe police too much.
When you did something wrong you have to FEAR the police. you have to RESPECT the police.
All this "people freedom" and "police brutality" irritate the crap out of me.
Bull****. To think one has to fear or respect the police by default is an example of shallow thinking. Respect is earned, and fear is invoked. The way the police started to handle the situation was disrespectful to the student, and he wasn't going to take it. Neither would I, to be honest. The only one in the wrong is the group of police who acted first. If they had handled it differently, that whole scene probably would have ended as quickly as it began. Kindly yet firmly saying "Sir, I'm going to need you to calm down" should have been the first, as well as last, thing they did. The world is slowly going to hell because law officers are starting to overstep their necessary boundaries. They are civil servants... They are to maintain the peace before enforcing anything.
-
Nicely put Scuddie. Trashman seems to confuse the police with Judge Dread.
-
The way the police started to handle the situation was disrespectful to the student, and he wasn't going to take it. Neither would I, to be honest. The only one in the wrong is the group of police who acted first. If they had handled it differently, that whole scene probably would have ended as quickly as it began. Kindly yet firmly saying "Sir, I'm going to need you to calm down" should have been the first, as well as last, thing they did.
Hold yer dang horsies there, cowboy.
Watch the second video link in the first post which shows just how he reacted to the 'Sir, you've reached your time limit, please let the next person speak.' Then notice his reaction when they've had enough and cut the mike. HE was disrespectful from (nearly) the very beginning, not to mention badgering the speaker with fecal clap-trap that was utterly disruptive to the forum before the real shenanigans even began. Their initial reaction was already heightened because of his attitude.
After watching it AGAIN (because I do take a great amount of perverse pleasure in listening to him scream and whine long after any potential pain from the shock is gone) he got one arm free of them and on a seat just prior to being tased, so he had resisted enough that he was not cuffed at all.
-
And why wasn't he cuffed instead of being tasered? Are you telling me that six police officers can't handcuff a single man?
-
Kara, seriously... now I hope you're twisting arguments for a laugh because you're making me repeat myself.
But just in case you're not:
Short answer: YES.
Not quite so short but slightly longer nonetheless answer: They tried and he resisted. They tried and he resisted. Then they tried more and he still resisted.
Long answer:
They tried and even had both arms behind him at one point, but then he managed to get one arm free again. It's all there in the video. If you were anywhere reasonably close-by, I would happily demonstrate how hard it is to maintain physical control over someone who is actively moving and fighting off your grip, even if you have all of your weight on them and were trying to keep them still long enough to put them in hand cuffs.
Situations exactly like these (as you even described and I Q'dFT not long after) are the reason tasers exist.
Now here's a new angle! If the police actually wanted to 'go for the gusto' and really get a power trip/overstep their bounds, giving the guy a nice elbow or two to the face or a kidney punch would be EVER MORE satisfying to them rather than standing back, pushing a button and watching him convulse for a couple seconds while he moans like a cow giving birth.
-
Kara lives in some kind of world where police are evil, and when they actually do their jobs (you know, instead of hanging out at the kwik-e-mart buying donuts, or getting drunk and shooting stop-signs) it is seen as an act of evil Big Brother government ****ting all over civil rights and liberties. Which it is not. It is the police doing their job.
Nobody really needs to defend it anymore. It is all in the video, and it is all in what he was charged with (resisting arrest, disturbing the peace.) He was dealt with accordingly. The police are people trying to do their jobs. They have tools to do it effectively. They used them appropriately. If anyone should ***** about anything, they should point out that, despite being a nuisance, talking out of turn, and being a dick to a U.S. Senator (whether warranted or not, was straight disrespectful) he was essentially hauled off for asking too tough questions and hogging the mic. If you want to make a connection to a police state or police overstepping their bounds on democracy or whatever, start there (Though you might have a hard time as he was also pretty much arrested for being a goddamn child about the whole thing, making a scene, including all the extra moaning about getting tazed.)
Kara also seems to live in some kind of world where all of this board's arm-chair morality reviews and subjective majority opinions vs. subjective minority opinions actually mean something.
-
restraining someone isnt as easy as it sounds, hell it takes 2 people to restrain one of my cats for a bath.
-
not to mention badgering the speaker with fecal clap-trap that was utterly disruptive to the forum before the real shenanigans even began
You must have missed Kerry saying "Those were important questions!"
-
not to mention badgering the speaker with fecal clap-trap that was utterly disruptive to the forum before the real shenanigans even began
You must have missed Kerry saying "Those were important questions!"
lol, he would say that. He's John Kerry. Those were as important questions as denouncing the Iraq War to the far Left was as important as playing up his Vietnam Service to the moderate conservative Democrats, during his campaign.
-
not to mention badgering the speaker with fecal clap-trap that was utterly disruptive to the forum before the real shenanigans even began
You must have missed Kerry saying "Those were important questions!"
lol, he would say that. He's John Kerry. Those were as important questions as denouncing the Iraq War to the far Left was as important as playing up his Vietnam Service to the moderate conservative Democrats, during his campaign.
So asking questions is badgering the speaker? So what do they do at speech forums?
Besides tasering students.
-
What? I'm confused. I think you missed my clever, if but slightly vague joke. I'll elaborate.
(http://themoderatevoice.com/wordpress-engine/files/caglecartoons02/pink_flip_flop.jpg)
-
What does have to do with anything?
Does that mean if Bush went upstage everything he told was automatically assumed to be a lie?
-
Bush doesn't lie. He's my president. Well, not mine per se, I didn't vote for him. I voted for the other guy. But he still presides over me. He wouldn't lie. It's against some oath or something.
But really, it just goes to show how much Kerry is worth. If Mr. Bush were up there, I'd expect educated college students (however educated you can be at Florida U. rofl) to ask worthwhile questions: "So when are you pulling the troops out?" "Remember Osama Bin-Laden?" "Can you get these Mexicans out of my backyard? They jumped my fence again." "My grandfather is dying right now because his health insurance premiums are too high, and his social security is running so low that he has to choose between rent and his medication. What do you think of that?" or "Exit strategylol?"
Instead, their guest speaker is Kerry. So what questions get addressed to him? - "Which fraternity were you in at Yale?"
GG.
-
Kara lives in some kind of world where police are evil, and when they actually do their jobs (you know, instead of hanging out at the kwik-e-mart buying donuts, or getting drunk and shooting stop-signs) it is seen as an act of evil Big Brother government ****ting all over civil rights and liberties. Which it is not. It is the police doing their job.
No I don't. Most police are good people trying to honestly make a difference. But there are always bad apples and there are always cases of poor training resulting in the unnecessary use of force.
There have been cases of Tasers being used on pregnant women, elderly people and on one occasion (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/15/taser_kids_zapped/) a 6 year old child. I'll point out that AFAIK no one was suspended in the case of the 6 year old who was tasered. I can only assume that KT or DiabloRojo was there to argue that he was a danger to the officer too.
-
On the six year old? lol
I was definitely there in court in support against the pregnant woman though. I mean, when was the last time you saw a sane pregnant woman, let alone one you could restrain? Hell, tazering-on-sight should be standard procedure around mothers-to-be as far as I'm concerned.
-
and they all died right, I mean a tazer is a dangerous weapon that could kill Paul Bunion, what sort of chance do children have?
-
Well considering we're talking about children fearsome enough to frighten 3 armed policemen, probably a quite good one.
-
Fiction: A Tazer is a tool used by police forces to gain control of a situation by subduing an assailant.
FACT: TAZERS are weapons producing the wrath of Thor, shooting 50,000 volts of lightning hot vengeance, destroying anyone who would *dare* threaten the user.
Instructional video on proper use of the TAZER weapon. (http://ghosttasers.ytmnd.com//)
-
Bull****. To think one has to fear or respect the police by default is an example of shallow thinking. Respect is earned, and fear is invoked. The way the police started to handle the situation was disrespectful to the student, and he wasn't going to take it. Neither would I, to be honest. The only one in the wrong is the group of police who acted first. If they had handled it differently, that whole scene probably would have ended as quickly as it began. Kindly yet firmly saying "Sir, I'm going to need you to calm down" should have been the first, as well as last, thing they did. The world is slowly going to hell because law officers are starting to overstep their necessary boundaries. They are civil servants... They are to maintain the peace before enforcing anything.
Double Bull***.
Respect is earned, yes, but ppl have to know you mean buisness. A small part of respect is also fear.
And the guy had it coming...They warned him and kept warning him a dozen times. I would haev used the taser a long before that on him. He knew the rules. the was baing a jerk. He ignored the police warnings.
Face it - there was no abue there. There was no excessive use of force...not by any normal standards. Of couse, I have no idea what standards you and Kaj support.
-
Just in case anyone forgot.... Voltage doesn't kill, current does.
-
Face it - there was no abue there. There was no excessive use of force...not by any normal standards. Of couse, I have no idea what standards you and Kaj support.
Normal ones.
Remember that the police officers ARE being investigated. So you can talk about normal until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that the supervisors involved think that there is merit for an investigation here.
No doubt Trashman believes that the Rodney King beating was also justified. Had to make him scared of the police and all.
-
Long answer:
They tried and even had both arms behind him at one point, but then he managed to get one arm free again. It's all there in the video. If you were anywhere reasonably close-by, I would happily demonstrate how hard it is to maintain physical control over someone who is actively moving and fighting off your grip, even if you have all of your weight on them and were trying to keep them still long enough to put them in hand cuffs.
wait... you're telling me SIX POLICEMEN/WOMEN could not subdue ONE SKINNY STUDENT?
...
-
While the useage of the tazer was a bit overboard, I will shed no tears over it. Mister Meyer acted like a douchebag, broke free from the Police repeatedly when they tried to escort him out.
Plus the ****er being a truther(BUSH ORCHESTRATED 9/11!) pretty much torpedos any kind of sympathy I have for him.
-
wait... you're telling me SIX POLICEMEN/WOMEN could not subdue ONE SKINNY STUDENT?
Yep. He really is. Repeatedly. As though we're all fools for believing that it couldn't possibly not be the case.
While the useage of the tazer was a bit overboard, I will shed no tears over it. Mister Meyer acted like a douchebag, broke free from the Police repeatedly when they tried to escort him out.
Plus the ****er being a truther(BUSH ORCHESTRATED 9/11!) pretty much torpedos any kind of sympathy I have for him.
The day when you start making your attitude towards a defendant a reason to abuse his civil rights is the day that give other people who don't agree with you the right to do the same to you.
Whatever happened to "I don't agree with what you are saying but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"
-
It went the way of "no unreasonable search and seizure." :rolleyes:
-
Before anybody goes further, it seems some things need clarification. Did the officers use more power than was necessary? Yes. Was it abusive? No. They did the wrong thing, and handled it inappropriately. That doesn't mean I think they were abusive.
In layman's terms, they ****ed up.
-
I'll go a little further and say that if this is the first time something like this has happened for these officers I'll say it was a **** up. But if the officers who were suspended have a history of overusing the taser then it's probably more than just that.
As I hinted before the problem here is probably a lack of training in when and when not to use the taser. We had the exact same problem in the UK when pepper spray was first introduced.
-
I'm sorry, but that's BS. 9 volt batteries can't discharge enough amperage to cause a heart to stop. Also the path of the electrical current wouldn't go further than a small part of your tongue.
How much amperage can a battery make? It only takes .03 milliampes to stop your heart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnV7e2eNbc&mode=related&search=
Now they are tasering 11 year old boys as a "last resort". :rolleyes: If they can't physically overpower a 5th grader then we as a society are in big trouble
-
11 years old? :doubt:
-
Remember that the police officers ARE being investigated. So you can talk about normal until you are blue in the face but it won't change the fact that the supervisors involved think that there is merit for an investigation here.
Of course the'yre being investigates. Some ppl are making a lot of noise and the only way to shut them up is an investiagion.
Investigations and accusations happen in RL even where tehre is no REAL cause or guilt - but rather to pacify a crowd and create some scapegoats for something.
No doubt Trashman believes that the Rodney King beating was also justified. Had to make him scared of the police and all.
I have no idea who that is, but police should be left to do their job wihtou having their hands tied. I'ts a sad day when the public cares more about the lawbreakers than the police.
People these days b*** and moan about everything too much...
-
I have no idea who that is, but police should be left to do their job wihtou having their hands tied. I'ts a sad day when the public cares more about the lawbreakers than the police.
People these days b*** and moan about everything too much...
The free world is built on the premise of innocence until proven guilty. That's why I compared your attitude to that of someone who thinks Judge Dread is a good idea. **** the judiciary, let's have the police decide who is guilty and who isn't. That way if they decide someone is guilty they can treat them however they like.
I'd bet you'd be the first one to start *****ing the second you actually got picked up by the police under the system of policing you seem to want though. But it's okay Trashman because although you'll ***** and moan about it there are people out there who do actually understand why presumption of innocence is important and why the police can't be allowed to run the streets with an iron fist. Don't worry. We'll protect your civil liberties. Even the ones you can't understand that you need.
-
The free world is built on the premise of innocence until proven guilty.
Exactly, so the police officers are currently innocent of an abuse charge. :cool:
-
The free world is built on the premise of innocence until proven guilty. That's why I compared your attitude to that of someone who thinks Judge Dread is a good idea. **** the judiciary, let's have the police decide who is guilty and who isn't. That way if they decide someone is guilty they can treat them however they like.
1. Judge Dread sucks. the movie, the comics, hte concept...well, at least to me.
2. Innocent untill proven guilty..yeah..but what does that have to do with this? If you witness his lawbreaking then the guilt is allready proven..he was resisting arest, there's no denying that.
I'd bet you'd be the first one to start *****ing the second you actually got picked up by the police under the system of policing you seem to want though. But it's okay Trashman because although you'll ***** and moan about it there are people out there who do actually understand why presumption of innocence is important and why the police can't be allowed to run the streets with an iron fist. Don't worry. We'll protect your civil liberties. Even the ones you can't understand that you need.
nope.. you know why? Becoasue I respect and listen to the police. I never break the law and I allways show everyone it's due respect. I wouldn't b*** and moan and generally act like a tard like that guy did. I would never give the police any REASON to use force against me in the first place.
Funny that you completely miss the point. This has allmost nothing to do with civil liberties in the first place - you don't have the right to break the law and resist the police.
-
Tell that to every man in jail for a crime they didn't commit.
Exactly, so the police officers are currently innocent of an abuse charge. :cool:
Yes. But they are also suspected of having committed a crime or at least having to face disciplinary action. Which means that you can't simply say "They didn't do anything wrong" any more than you can say that they did.
-
I'm still a little confused as to which law he was breaking when they bore him to the ground? Last I heard 'Using colourful language' or ' Asking a politician an awkward (or even silly) question' were not criminal offences, though the first could be considered public disorder, but even then, I really don't want the Police to get into the habit of using pain-induction to deal with public unrest, it's something that should be discouraged, it might have been the 'right reasons' but I still can't help thinking it was the 'wrong thing' to do.
-
First, I'd like to say that I think the kid just caused the whole scene because he wanted to make a point about the police. I wasn't there so I could be completely wrong. He also tried to resist being escorted from the building, so they had a right to use force. I'm not saying it was necessary force, but they had the right to use it.
Second, most cops are nice. When they pull you over they're just doing their job. When I got arrested for underage drinking, they were actually friendly. As long as you treat them with respect, they're nice to you. Actually be nice to them, because they dropped the public drunkeness charge on my because of it.
And third, did anyone else hear in the video John Kerry in the background saying something like "I'll answer his question, It's an Important question, Well I guess he can't ask it now." while they were restraining the kid? I thought that was kinda amusing.
-
For Trashman and the other people ignorant of who Rodney King is, here you go (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4nbAUG9Kg).
-
Can't you jsut tell? I'm not signing up just to wathc some vid..
But let me guess - he's some (probably black) kid who got beat up by police? If you're trying to pull police brutality into this you're barking at the wrong tree.
What they did wasn't brutal and was within their rights.
Tasering brutal? LOL... man, you hanv't seen nuttin.
-
all suspects should be impaled on sight
and if it turns out they were innocent then wel give the body back to the family for a proper buirial, instead of feeding it to the bums
-
The cops who beat Rodney King were also claimed by many to be within their rights. That's the whole reason I brought it into this discussion.
And if you can't be bothered to sign up how about just typing his name into Wikipedia?
-
Yep. He really is. Repeatedly. As though we're all fools for believing that it couldn't possibly not be the case.
I don't appreciate having words put into my mouth... or my keyboard. Had a thought you fools, I wouldn't waste the time on you. However, you do seem to enjoy twisting facts of the story, and I am only trying to correct you.
Now then... Rodney King was beaten to within an inch of his life. That WAS excessive force and there's no doubt about that. The officers contended (with much discredited by the 'Holiday Video') that he continued to resist arrest after being tasered and then badly beaten with batons. On a side note, this situation also prompted a [new? I think there were a few] study about the mental effects on police from high-speed chases, where police often exhibit much more violent behavior from the stress induced by the chase, which partially explained the situation, though in no way excused it.
On the 6-year old, read THIS (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_6_yr_old_wielding_glass.htm). It contains much more information on the situation with which the police were faced. Here, police are charged with protecting you from yourself as well, you know. Without the taser, this kid might have managed to inflict mortal harm to himself, or the police may have inflicted further injury in an attempt to physically stop him.
In all, tou seem to see the taser as this great evil weapon of fear and pain induction when it's function is quick incapacitation and safely ending a situation with no lasting effects. I am guessing, as I have heard it explained before, that seeing the effects, someone completely losing control over themselves at the hands of authority figures greatly disturbs you. I'm happy to say that perception, while understandable, is impossibly flawed. Yes it causes pain and momentary loss of control, but it is only temporary and again, this is just a tool for disarming a situation. It is an 'equalizer.' No, it isn't perfect, but it is far more safe and effective than forcing police to endanger everyone involved with an all-physical engagement against combative or potentially dangerous suspects.
-
In all, tou seem to see the taser as this great evil weapon of fear and pain induction when it's function is quick incapacitation and safely ending a situation with no lasting effects.
Now who's putting words in someone else mouth?
I have no problems with police having tasers but the fact is that better training is needed for their use. This situation and the one with the 6 year old are situations in which the taser should not have been used. Do I need to point out that TASER International themselves say that the weapon should not be used on anyone that size?
The Taser should be used as a non lethal alternative to a gun. If someone threatens a cop with a knife you taser him when he charges rather than shooting him. That's when the weapon should be used. As a hopefully less lethal alternative to the baton or pistol. The problem comes when people think that since the taser is designed as a non-lethal weapon you can use it at times when you wouldn't use the weapon it's a replacement for.
Let me ask you a question. Had the police not had a taser would you have considered it excessive to beat the suspect with a baton until he complied?
-
I have no problems with police having tasers but the fact is that better training is needed for their use. This situation and the one with the 6 year old are situations in which the taser should not have been used.
And there are a LOT of people who'd say the opposite..
So it's basicly a matter of oppinion wether it was warranted or not.
-
It's also a matter of science though. If even the manufacturers of the device say it's not safe to use on 6 year olds then it's a fair bet that they're more likely to be correct than you are.
-
I'm a little surprised about the video, I saw no need to use the taser at all. The police didn't do their job very well in the beginning either - for me it would seem that they were not used to be working in situations like these. They stated their intentions quite clearly, yes, but in this case it doesn't really help. There was no reason for it, and thus the behavior of the student. Unfortunately the police reactions caused some kind of panic attack for the student, who probably was not very used to talk or deal with police. However, I did not see any need to escort the person out from that situation (and no, asking something related to conspiracy theories is not a reason), and he certainly was not a threat. Besides, why was there police in the first place?
Generally speaking, it is well possible that you need six strong men to take down a single enraged man (and sometimes this is not enough!). This was not that kind of case.
This reminds me of a incident here, when a guy was pulling up a shotgun from his car and starting to aim the police. The police responded by shooting the guy in the elbow through the windshield and then subdued him. And imagine that there was somekind of minor outcry of police violence (human rights organisations) after this incident! This was a police response I can understand, the one in the link I cannot.
Mika
-
This reminds me of a incident here, when a guy was pulling up a shotgun from his car and starting to aim the police. The police responded by shooting the guy in the elbow through the windshield and then subdued him. And imagine that there was somekind of minor outcry of police violence (human rights organisations) after this incident! This was a police response I can understand, the one in the link I cannot.
Either that's the "Media Outrage!!!111" version of the story or the people making the complaint are idiots. Someone holding a firearm is definitely a threat. I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if they'd shot him dead. Shooting to disarm actually showed restraint.
-
It's also a matter of science though. If even the manufacturers of the device say it's not safe to use on 6 year olds then it's a fair bet that they're more likely to be correct than you are.
Maby there is a risk, but could you have jumped at the kid and taken that piece of glass before he could slit his artery open? You consider that LESS of a risk?
And I have to see about that manufacturer statement yet. So far all I have is your word, and that's frankly no evidence at all.
-
If you need proof.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/children.tasers/index.html
Taser International says more than 5,000 police agencies use its product, that it is safe to use on anyone weighing at least 60 pounds.
-
hmm, actually looking at that situation with the kid, that might not have been such a bad idea, he was basically carving himself up with a piece of broken glass, I wouldn't say using stun guns on kids should be a common policy, but that situation, I can't think of many better ways to have done it, if you'd had tried to just grab him he might have slit his own wrists or throat.
and even if you don't agree with that it was more of a high level policy issue, cause the cop called in and asked if it was against the rules, and they said they didn't have anything, and THEN she stunned him.
-
I've been tasered a fair amount of times in my life. I would much rather get tasered versus any of the following: Breaking/bruising a bone, a dislocation, a black eye, a punch in the gut, or even a moderately bad rugburn, etc. That's just me and my friends' opinion, but its an honest one.
(Ooooooh I know what some of you are thinking... "Yeah, it was probably just a really low-powered taser." In which case you would be wrong. :lol:)
-
I'm glad that stupid **** got tazered. He was totally asking for it being all stupid like that. I mean going to a senator debate and not even being in line, runs up to the head of the line to steal the microphone and say some bs. And he wonders why the cops were on him? And he wonders why the cops were even more on him when he was going crazy to the point of tazering.
This wasn't about his rights being taken away in front of everyone, nor was this about freedom of speech being taken away. Just some stupid **** who ended up breaking the law by first breaking the rules at the senator debate thing. I absolutely hate people who get way to uppity with their rights, that's ok, they're just the next ones up to get tazered too :lol: Anyway for the cops saying that the dumb kid was inciting a riot, well, yes he was trying to incite a riot based on his behavior, actions, and stupidity. That kid majorly needs to learn how to follow the rules, hell, his parents are just as stupid anyway otherwise he wouldn't have done any of this and would have patiently waited in line. Patience is a virtue. The stupid kid appearing in court was really good too. I bet he really likes tazers now too.
As far as tazers actually killing people? Tazers work great all the time, and cops warn people that they're going to get tazered if they don't comply. Tazers are mainly for making criminals compliant if their too dumb to listen to the cops. Now of course no ones going to tazer you're grandma, or especially a person in a wheel chair (i'd want to see the wheelchair thing happen though).
Now why the cops are being investigated? Unfortunately the whole incident got caught on tape and put on tv, so what's going to happen is a whole bunch of unanswered questions from different sides of the story will appear and misconstrue **** even further, and then less and less people will be paying attention to what actually happened as opposed to who likes whose side of the story better and try to pass that off as what happened. I feel sorry for the cops who did a proper job in the video that they are now being investigated.
And who cares if that kid was handcuffed when he got tazered, he still didn't comply with the cops because he was too dumb to never stop being crazy the whole time.
-
There was once an incident (again at my former university) about a cop who was checking some kid for drugs by looking at his eyes, but the kid had add so the cop assumed he was on something because his eyes moved often. Another kid tried to explain this, but the cop then turned and arrested him, in the process hurting his knee pretty bad. :rolleyes:
-
Now who's putting words in someone else mouth?
Sorry, I baited you ;) ... or should I say 'tou'
Seriously, that's the impression I get from people that are vocally against the use of tasers in general. That's not directed at you as I understand your wish for more discretion in their use, not abolishment. But, they are not intended simply as a replacement for a gun or baton because of their capabilities and short-term effects. I think their track record of saving lives and preventing injuries in situations where physical force would otherwise be required speaks for itself (especially in the case of the six year old with a death wish, under-60-lb-warning-label or no).
Now to your question: no, with conditions. Just randomly beating on the guy (ala Rodney King) would of course be excessive. One hit (or two if required) to an area like the abdomen to wind him would not be. If he resists after that then he's ****ed.
Off the subject, but I saw this in the CNN story and thought it was hilarious in an extremely sad way, but noteworthy. What a perfect example of denial and a complete lack of parenting skills... "If there's three officers, it's nothing to tell a 6-year-old holding a glass, if you feel threatened, 'Hey, here's a piece of candy, hey, here's a toy. Let the glass go,'" the boy's mother told CNN.
'Excuse me ma'am, but your son was cutting himself and threatening suicide at the age of six! Candy and toys don't fix extreme mental and emotional problems!'
-
This reminds me of a incident here, when a guy was pulling up a shotgun from his car and starting to aim the police. The police responded by shooting the guy in the elbow through the windshield and then subdued him. And imagine that there was somekind of minor outcry of police violence (human rights organisations) after this incident! This was a police response I can understand, the one in the link I cannot.
Mika
I agree with you...police should be allowed to shoot first and ask questions later if a gun is pulled on them. It's for their own safety. But in the video, there really is no need for the taser. The student wasn't a threat and there really was no need to take him out of the Q&A session. It may not have been a totally legitimate question but there are first amendment rights and such. And John Kerry sounded like he was prepared to answer the question.
EDIT: This post kinda contradicts a post I made earlier but after thinking about it some, I gotta say, there was no need for the student to be escorted from the place, unless something happened before the video started that I didn't see at all
-
It's pretty apparent that if the cops asked that student to leave, that he wouldn't have. You can tell this just by how crazy the sob is with his stupid agenda at the kerry forum. Tazers are also used to keep people from getting even more out of line...tazers do an awesome job at making people submissive to the cops which is apparently what cops use them for when someone just wont do what they say. This guy was way out of line and resisted the cops the whole way through. They warned him that if he kept up his **** that he would get tazed. He didn't calm down, so he got tazed.
But, upon further examination from citizens who think they are above the cops (with how much sob said he was going to get up and walk out the door), they never learn their lessons. This guy is going to get himself in trouble with the cops again in the future.
What this sob needs at the kerry forum was a high power cattle prod and several shocks from it on his belly :lol:
-
I mean going to a senator debate and not even being in line, runs up to the head of the line to steal the microphone and say some bs. And he wonders why the cops were on him? And he wonders why the cops were even more on him when he was going crazy to the point of tazering.
Where the hell did you get that from? He was in line. He was in line for two whole hours. As for bull****, the senator didn't seem to mind and even regarded those questions as "important".
-
His time was up, he didn't want to leave and kept yelling, basicly making it impossible for others in the debate to ask their question.
So yes, he was very much disturbing public order.
-
His time was up, he didn't want to leave and kept yelling, basicly making it impossible for others in the debate to ask their question.
So yes, he was very much disturbing public order.
His mic was cut, when he looked at his back out of nowhere two policemen put their arms around him without a word. If I were him I'd have freaked out too.
His "disturbing of public order" as you say was parcially caused by the policemen.
And this still doesn't explain why 6 policemen had to use a taser when even one of them seemed to have no effort handling the student (in the video one of the policemen literally carries the guy across about 10 meters or something).
-
From the sources that i read. It all said that he wasn't in line and ran to the front and stole the microphone. Why the hell else would he have cops in back of him the whole entire time he was asking a question if he hadn't done that? And actually when the guy was getting tazered kerry did start answering his question about the voting machine scandal.
Kerry gets a medal because he didn't mind the guy asking him questions. Kerry was even telling the cops that detaining the guy was unnecessary and that he'd answer his questions. Hell, the cops didn't care, the moment that guy started going crazy when he was going to be escorted out...the cops and the crazy dude were in a whole different world.
The guy who got tazered doesn't get a medal because he didn't give kerry a chance to answer his questions until he got tazered :lol:
What's really uneducated for the university for florida students to do right now is protesting against the campus cops. They're protesting that the cops on campus shouldn't be allowed to have tazers. This is a bad idea. Tazers are a lot better than guns and police batons any day when it comes to making people compliant. If they actually succeed in making the cops there not be able to carry tazers limits the effectiveness of their campus police in a very bad way (which i highly doubt they'll succeed). But, if they did succeed, the next time a student ****s up and is non-compliant, said person is going to get something a lot worse called pepper spray. And from studying a ton of police tazering videos on youtube today after watching the UF incident (i wanted to know more about police handling tazers), i'd rather take a tazer than pepper. After you get tazered, you recover very rapidly from the tazering...this is how they are. They are the ultimate in police work for making arrestees compliant and they do as advertized successfully. This is a lot better than pepper spray, police batons, and guns. I guess UF students would rather be subdued by pepper spray or police batons since they don't want the campus police to have tazers which i find that the police used properly at the UF incident. I didn't see any excessive force happen. It took a lot of officers because that guy was going crazy and two of the officers couldn't restrain him, so a whole bunch more came in. After that the guy still wouldn't comply with the cops after he was pinned on the ground.
What i thought was really funny about the video besides, "don't taze me bro!", was the stupid red head ***** who was doing the yelling at the cops while he was getting tazered.
Unfortunately now there's people making money off of the incident dont-taze-me-bro.com (http://www.dont-taze-me-bro.com/). As far as tazers being successful. They are highly effective, they make people compliant without the police having to get in a fist fight brawl. Among this video being priceless, eventually the drunk driver finally submits to the cop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0krGMWz7pCo). Man that drunk guy was stupid, but he finally complied with the cop so he was no longer a threat on the road, and if the cop didn't have a tazer, it probably would have been a brawl with the cop looking for an opportune time to slap cuffs on the bastard.
Another example of non-compliance with cops is this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qmoz3zF4T8w). And boy, that lady is a *****, and fugly at that.
Regardless of what happens now, i feel sad for the situation in UF for the misconstruing what happened (regardless of what actually did happen...even though waht is on tape is what happened from about 4 other people in the audience at 4 different angles with cameras who all filmed the same thing), the protests, and that stupid asshole's 15 min's of fame.
Anyway, generally if cops we're going to take me away from the kerry forum, i'd just ****ing damn comply with them. Patience is a virtue, and not go all crazy on them. I mean if you do something wrong and the cops have you right there, there's no point in struggling, you're not going to get away. After that if you didn't do something wrong clear it up with the cops, don't give them a reason not to believe you. After that, if you just plain old comply with the cops period, **** goes a lot easier for you. If the cops were taking me away, i'd be like wtf too, but i'd just be quiet so **** gets cleared up faster. And with the guy struggling the way he did with like extra cops coming was so ****ing stupid. That guy has a 7 pound water head. He totally gets a darwin award because he just didn't use his brain. "Don't taze me bro!", and then he keeps resisting so he gets tazered :lol: And then, of course is everyone's negative reaction to the police saying, "****ing pigs", "popo just darn ****ed up", just such a lack of respect for police these days for the many who do awesome jobs.
-
What's really uneducated for the university for florida students to do right now is protesting against the campus cops. They're protesting that the cops on campus shouldn't be allowed to have tazers. This is a bad idea.
I tend to agree with you on that point. I don't have a problem with the use of tasers when the alternative is more likely to cause harm.
-
that drunk was funny. i know of another video involving several hits with a stun gun to some guys penis, but it was pr0n so i cant link it. anyway i still cant tell if the mic hog was hit with a stun gun or a tazer. and i think their names should be reversed as a tazer looks more like a gun and actually fires a projectile, while a stungun requires direct contact to the electrodes and looks nothing like a gun.
anyway you got to cut cops some slack. they have a very short amount of time to make a decision and a screw up could cost them their jobs or worse. we can debate this all year but the cops didnt have a year. had mr dont taze me bro had a weapon, im sure that mic would look like a club at sertain angles, or maybe he had a kiester stashed explosive device, and considering a senator was present, things coulda gotten alot worse. maybe one of the cops didnt get their bear claw that morning. anyway they didnt have a whole lotta time to figure out what to do about the situation. mind you this is the cocaine and heroin capital of the usa, them cops have probibly seen alot of freaky stuff. its the job of police officers to make those split second decisions they dont have time to stop and debate the ethics of all the potential options at their disposal.
you can train responses to the usual stuff, drunk, crackhead, burgler, but you cant plan out your actions for scenarios you cant predict. no amount of training can tell a cop how to instantly come up with a plan of action in the time it takes to draw a weapon. that only comes though an innate talent or expieience (something i dont think campus cops have much when compaired to for example a harlem beat cop). the matter with the 6 year old shows a more expirienced officer who made use of patience to come up with a plan of action and even stopped to check if it was ok. anyone who grew up watching cops should know the jobs not easy. and with all jobs you have noobs and you have the expirienced, the seasond vets, and you have the elite. and if the higherups do their jobs right the right people get allocated to the right departments or the right situations.
-
Yeah after i saw a ton of the UF incident today a billion times on youtube and also looking for news reports. Some of the things that people said he shouldn't have gotten tazered because he wasn't a threat. And i was like hmmmmm. I don't really know how cops do use tazers. Youtube education, man i watched so many youtube police tazer videos today that do show how cops use tazers, you can even find cop training sessions on video on youtube where cops get trained in tazer usage. Then i found out the answer to the question that everyone had about the guy who shouldn't have been tazered unless he was a threat.
Tazers aren't used as weapons, you can't even compare a tazer to a gun or a knife or a baton. It's just used for making the non-compliant compliant. Tazers are good at preventing threats, but more mainly used compliance than anything else.
-
Hang on a sec. If tasers are not used as defensive weapons then the description you've just given is not of a weapon to be used for the protection of the police officer but of a weapon of torture. You can get compliance by twisting a suspects fingers back or pulling his hair and then slamming him into a wall too. Would those be alright too? Or is it simply the fact that the taser leaves no lasting mark that makes it okay?
If you're claiming that a taser is NOT a weapon to be used for protecting an officer under threat but is in fact solely for the purpose of causing pain in a subject so that he'll do what you tell him to then you've forced me to revise my position on tasers and call for a ban on them.
Deliberately inflicting pain on someone so that they'll do what you tell them to is not how police should be acting in a civilised society.
-
The more I think about the video, the more it seems simply like inexperienced police officers doing the stuff that was taught them in the academy. Unfortunately, this was not even close to a drunken brawler who resists arrest, but a student who simply freaked out when officers came by him when he was asking a question - in a University!
For me it seems like an excessive use of force, and also totally unnecessary. I'd like to know what Kerry himself thought of the situation, it is not too nice public image for him either. Free Speech applies to everyone, and you have to tolerate people talking about the things the student addressed - even though against the rules, but not against the law. Otherwise remember that in some circumstances that person who will not be tolerated by the group can be you! Besides, it was not the job of the police to note the student that he had crossed the line - that is reserved to the chair of the panel. I have seen similar politically minded types here, they are mostly simply ignored and grow up to be good parents (excuse me my cynicism).
Besides, after reading through some comments in the web and talking with people coming from USA, not all are happy with the election results and some (albeit a small percentage) suspect a rig, so I see the question justified, maybe against the rules of the panel, but still justified. If you cannot ask difficult questions with hundreds of people witnessing, what can you learn about the politician? Had he not been tasered and the stuff he had said had been ridiculous, this might still be a youtube clip with a title "Crazy conspiracy nut" or something like that, i.e. the guy would have made a fool out of himself and nobody would care about the stuff he said.
Mika
-
well they needed practice. when one of those cops faces a suicidal 6 year old he should be all the more wiser :D
-
Meh ...tazers incapacitate shortly but they don't hurt half as much as you'd think. They're not a brutal tool at all.
-
Deliberately inflicting pain on someone so that they'll do what you tell them to is not how police should be acting in a civilised society.
Yeah! We should just ask them politely (verbal abuse is abuse too!) to stop committing a crime until they grudgingly agree and tell the police "Ok ok, I was a jerk. You can cuff me now." Then everybody drives down to the pub, buys each other drinks, laughs it off, and then go dancing hand in hand in a field of beautiful flowers.
-
Or you could arrest them and put them on trial all the while obeying the cruel and unusual clause that is in the constitution.
-
Or you could arrest them and put them on trial all the while obeying the cruel and unusual clause that is in the constitution.
I think I would rather go running in a field of flowers. But that's just me. Being arrested just seems a bit too cruel and unusual.
Hahahha ok ok I'll stop trolling. But seriously - you've got a point. It really just comes down to what your view of "cruel and unusual" is. My opinion - tasering is a much better and more humane option than ripping somebody's arm out of their socket to try to cuff them when they're resisting arrest.
-
the sad thing is theyre gonna go through this debate each and every time they come out with a better non-leathal weapon. such as a sonic or optical hypnotic system that will render the suspect in a trance within a second of having the device pointed at em with no pain and no ill effects then they will still call the device cruel and unusual. non leathal weapons are a major field of study theese days and there are more meathods and aproaches out there than you can imagine. this kind of debate will simply slow down the development of those ideas by burying them in controversy and bull**** debate. bottom line non-leathal weapons arent perfect, but how can they be when somone files a lawsuit every time a tazer gets used. or we can do it the old fashoned way and use an axe.
-
Hang on a sec. If tasers are not used as defensive weapons then the description you've just given is not of a weapon to be used for the protection of the police officer but of a weapon of torture. You can get compliance by twisting a suspects fingers back or pulling his hair and then slamming him into a wall too. Would those be alright too? Or is it simply the fact that the taser leaves no lasting mark that makes it okay?
If you're claiming that a taser is NOT a weapon to be used for protecting an officer under threat but is in fact solely for the purpose of causing pain in a subject so that he'll do what you tell him to then you've forced me to revise my position on tasers and call for a ban on them.
Considering that tazers usually don't cause damage....ok fine you're right, a defensive weapon, and works good in the offense too. As far as tazers being torture? Naah...torture would be considered several spray of pepper spray in the face, now you're getting closer to torture. And if not torture then it's the person getting arrested receiving a beat down when he resists, and don't forget the guns, don't forget the guns. The more you go down the list of things for cops to use the worse it gets.
Deliberately inflicting pain on someone so that they'll do what you tell them to is not how police should be acting in a civilised society.
YES IT IS! How civilized are ****ing criminals these days (they aren't)? I mean ****, the nastiest criminals are animals, from the ones who shoot cops, mollesting your kids, to robbing your grandma. There's no ****ing way you're going to get a cop killer to obey the law without pulling out justices rod of correction. Criminals would completely take advantage of the fact that cops wouldn't be allowed to inflict pain. More criminals would be able to escape, gets cops in more dangerous situations, and there would especially be a whole bunch of lawsuits coming from those arrested because the cop had to inflict some pain to get them into the police car. The cops would be a big group of panzies, and if anyone had a vengence agains't them, that'd also be a good time to gang up on them.
So no tazers = get more and more and more traquilizer guns :nod: i see how you're thinking now man, replace every tazer in the world that a cop has with a tranq. gun ;)
I think I would rather go running in a field of flowers. But that's just me. Being arrested just seems a bit too cruel and unusual.
Hahahha ok ok I'll stop trolling. But seriously - you've got a point. It really just comes down to what your view of "cruel and unusual" is. My opinion - tasering is a much better and more humane option than ripping somebody's arm out of their socket to try to cuff them when they're resisting arrest.
I'd love to do that when arrested :nod: I mean, you're just sooo right, being arrested is a violation of ones freedom and rights ;7 And the pigs need to be hated for taking away people's freedom and rights when the criminal will never figure this out at all the he revoked his rights and freedom the moment he committed a crime :lol:
The more I think about the video, the more it seems simply like inexperienced police officers doing the stuff that was taught them in the academy. Unfortunately, this was not even close to a drunken brawler who resists arrest, but a student who simply freaked out when officers came by him when he was asking a question - in a University!
For me it seems like an excessive use of force, and also totally unnecessary. I'd like to know what Kerry himself thought of the situation, it is not too nice public image for him either. Free Speech applies to everyone, and you have to tolerate people talking about the things the student addressed - even though against the rules, but not against the law. Otherwise remember that in some circumstances that person who will not be tolerated by the group can be you! Besides, it was not the job of the police to note the student that he had crossed the line - that is reserved to the chair of the panel. I have seen similar politically minded types here, they are mostly simply ignored and grow up to be good parents (excuse me my cynicism).
Besides, after reading through some comments in the web and talking with people coming from USA, not all are happy with the election results and some (albeit a small percentage) suspect a rig, so I see the question justified, maybe against the rules of the panel, but still justified. If you cannot ask difficult questions with hundreds of people witnessing, what can you learn about the politician? Had he not been tasered and the stuff he had said had been ridiculous, this might still be a youtube clip with a title "Crazy conspiracy nut" or something like that, i.e. the guy would have made a fool out of himself and nobody would care about the stuff he said.
Mika
That guy didn't get taken away for asking the wrong questions. WTF, these weren't secret undercover Kerry escort police, these were just campus cops and **** if they're going to know when someone is or isn't going to ask Kerry the right questions. They're there to keep the order and escort those who break the rules. Kerry did start answering his questions when they were holding down andrew meyers. Watch more footage of the incident and compare it to the news reports. You'll learn some stuff that way, you'll learn what happened, versus what didn't happen a lot better. This guy got taken out for a very different reason. That's why i think the whole misconstruing is retarded because now people are using this as saying freedom of speech of his was violated. It wasn't, he ran to the front of the line and stole the microphone, he was going to get escorted out, but then he freaked. In fact he freaked out so much, it was like a big indicator that he definitely knew that he did something wrong on purpose. Otherwise he would have shut the **** up and get escorted peacefully.
This was not about violation of freedom of speech.
-
You know, guys, YTMND is having a field day with this. (http://dtmb-punch-out.ytmnd.com/)
-
Police officers in a civilized (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkQ69cvuA34&mode=related&search=) society.
Start at 2:18 if you're lazy.
-
You know, guys, YTMND is having a field day with this. (http://dtmb-punch-out.ytmnd.com/)
I prefer this one (http://ghosttasers.ytmnd.com/) myself.
-
Those ytmnd's are priceless. :lol:
-
Considering that tazers usually don't cause damage....ok fine you're right, a defensive weapon, and works good in the offense too. As far as tazers being torture? Naah...torture would be considered several spray of pepper spray in the face, now you're getting closer to torture.
There have been lots of cases where the suspect has been repeatedly tasered. Now if that was done because the suspect continued to be a threat after the first application then I have no problem with its use but if as you now claim the taser is only there to get the suspect to do what the police want then how is that different from using the taser back in the police station to get a confession? Surely the police want that too?
And if not torture then it's the person getting arrested receiving a beat down when he resists, and don't forget the guns, don't forget the guns. The more you go down the list of things for cops to use the worse it gets.
But guns are for the defence of the police. If a suspect has a gun and is an imminent danger to you, your fellow officers or the general public, you need to be able to take him down as quickly as possible. You're the one claiming that the taser isn't for the defence of any of those people. You're the one saying it's basically a human version of a cattle prod. In which case it shouldn't be allowed.
Criminals would completely take advantage of the fact that cops wouldn't be allowed to inflict pain. More criminals would be able to escape, gets cops in more dangerous situations, and there would especially be a whole bunch of lawsuits coming from those arrested because the cop had to inflict some pain to get them into the police car. The cops would be a big group of panzies, and if anyone had a vengence agains't them, that'd also be a good time to gang up on them.
I'm not saying you should panzify the police. If a suspect bangs his head on the cop car struggling against the police then that's his own fault. Tough luck. If however the police smack his head against the car first so that he won't stuggle when they put him in the car then it's not same thing. Can you not see the difference between these two senarios? Police are allowed to use force in apprehending criminals. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is to deliberately inflict pain in order to get compliance.
You're saying that the main use of the taser is not to stop the criminal from getting away, not to apprehend the criminal but to intentionally inflict pain on him so that he won't cause the police any further problems. How is that different from slamming his face into the door to shut him up?
Or is it that you want to live in a world where the police are allowed to beat up suspects if they are causing them trouble?
-
Lol, cattle prod, i only mentioned that the "don't tazer me bro" guy should have gotten that. Sometimes suspects need to be repeatedly tazered. Drunk people who want to get away is one example, and a whole bunch of others (some people can withstand being tazered more than once so being tazered more than once can be necessary). And the only kind of situations i was mentioning tazers was when people get arrested and resist. Not for confessions, that's going over the top.
Police will use guns when they needs to use guns, police will use mace when they need to use mace, police will use batons when they need to use batons, police will use tazers when they need to use tazers.
Really the only thing criminals respond to if they don't go quietly when being arrested is pain. Tazers are also used for keeping criminals from getting away. What do you think tazers do really? They cause pain, and when someone uses one, that means they are intentionally causing someone pain. Apply this to people who are going to get away and resisting arrest, those types of people will only submit to the cops through the use of pain. So when a cop whips out a tazer they intend to cause the criminal pain...now here's the ringer, it's really great. They intend to cause the criminal pain for a purpose called apprehension. Whether its stopping someone from getting away or making someone stop resisting.
Police are allowed to use force in apprehending criminals. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is to deliberately inflict pain in order to get compliance.
This is just wierd. Police are allowed to use force, but they can't deliberately cause pain while using force? Write up a new definition of force to make yourself happier in your dreamland. Force is a pretty broad term.
-
If a police man slams a suspects head into the floor as he tackles him to the ground to arrest him that's valid. If 5 fellow officers hold the suspect while he slams the suspects head into the floor to stop him resisting arrest that's not valid.
Why are you having trouble with such a simple premise?
-
I'm not saying you should panzify the police. If a suspect bangs his head on the cop car struggling against the police then that's his own fault. Tough luck. If however the police smack his head against the car first so that he won't stuggle when they put him in the car then it's not same thing. Can you not see the difference between these two senarios? Police are allowed to use force in apprehending criminals. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is to deliberately inflict pain in order to get compliance.
You're saying that the main use of the taser is not to stop the criminal from getting away, not to apprehend the criminal but to intentionally inflict pain on him so that he won't cause the police any further problems. How is that different from slamming his face into the door to shut him up?
Or is it that you want to live in a world where the police are allowed to beat up suspects if they are causing them trouble?
The lack of understanding that people have about these things astounds me sometimes. I'm not sure if I get it because I've been in a few fights of my own, been in wrestling/karate etc... or because I have a few friends in the police that have told me how and why they do the things that they do.
In a physical 'exchange of force,' from an onlooker's perspective, there is -literally- no difference between a suspect inflicting an injury upon themselves or a cop doing it for them. Cops are not superhuman. This isn't the movies. This isn't Katie "Just Shoot His Hands" Couric. In hand to hand combat, things just happen. Intent has nothing to do with it. I could throw my arm trying to block somebody from grabbing me and end up cracking their skull by complete accident.
Now... somebody is physically resisting arrest. He/she is a potential danger to #1: himself/herself, #2: the police, and #3: others around him. The police are in just as much danger, if not more, than the offender. So in short, yes that is a world that I would want to live in "where the police are allowed to beat up suspects if they are causing them trouble." Because if I had to choose between a law-abiding police officer getting injured vs. a law-breaker getting injured.... I think the choice would be obvious. Now, thank God/Allah/StephenColbert/Gandalf/Whoever that we have something like the taser where there is virtually no risk of injury to either sides.
P.S> Now, if we were talking about improper use of force (when an officer uses force FAR above what is necessary to subdue a criminal): I can see where you're coming from, in which case I completely apologize for my rant. :P :yes:
edit - edited for religious neutrality :nervous:
-
P.S> Now, if we were talking about improper use of force (when an officer uses force FAR above what is necessary to subdue a criminal): I can see where you're coming from, in which case I completely apologize for my rant. :P :yes:
Of course I'm talking about improper use of force. :rolleyes:
This entire discussion is about whether the use of a taser when you have 6 officers holding a man down is improper use of force.
Only a moron would say that the police should apprehend all suspects by tapping them on the shoulder and saying "Would you accompany me to the station please". So your entire rant was directed at a strawman.
-
Ah, didn't notice the other link in the first post. That definetely gives a different idea of the events that took place. No it is not a free speech issue, he is at least partially acting up the stuff and thinks that people will support him. Still, escorting someone out for that? What did he do before the video took place?
Mika
-
There have been lots of cases where the suspect has been repeatedly tasered. Now if that was done because the suspect continued to be a threat after the first application then I have no problem with its use but if as you now claim the taser is only there to get the suspect to do what the police want then how is that different from using the taser back in the police station to get a confession? Surely the police want that too?
You're comparing torture to get a confession with aresting a uncompliant criminal? :wtf:
I'm not saying you should panzify the police. If a suspect bangs his head on the cop car struggling against the police then that's his own fault. Tough luck. If however the police smack his head against the car first so that he won't stuggle when they put him in the car then it's not same thing. Can you not see the difference between these two senarios? Police are allowed to use force in apprehending criminals. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is to deliberately inflict pain in order to get compliance.
Rubbish. If he won't comply than bang some sense into his head. If he's not resisting - well, thats a whole nother ball of beezwax.
You're saying that the main use of the taser is not to stop the criminal from getting away, not to apprehend the criminal but to intentionally inflict pain on him so that he won't cause the police any further problems. How is that different from slamming his face into the door to shut him up?
Or is it that you want to live in a world where the police are allowed to beat up suspects if they are causing them trouble?
Tazering DOES NOT EQUAL beating up. And if somone is giving police trouble, then yes...tazer away.
You ARE trying to panzify the police.. :rolleyes:
This entire discussion is about whether the use of a taser when you have 6 officers holding a man down is improper use of force.
Not if he's still resisting... and b.t.w. - whouldn't being held by 6 people count as MORE force than a tazer zap????
-
Tazers really do nothing but cause pain. Recovery is very rapid, and when using on most healthy people no side affects either. Sounds pretty humane to me (the whole entire only causing pain and nothing else part) from my perspective even the fact that it keeps the officer safer as well as the suspect. This is where kara will come in with the "people have died from tazers". That's why tazer technology gets refined and the handling, rules, manual, and training for it changes as this happens. When cops get a tazer, they do get rigorous training for how to use it and when (except for that one video where the trainee didn't know that the tazer shoots at a slightly downward angle and nailed their trainer in the nuts while he slowly melted to the floor).
Even if a suspect is pinned down and can't go anywhere, and their still resisting, it's also the cops who want everything to go easier for the suspect and them. Even if the suspect can't get away and is still struggling while pinned and the suspect gets warned he'll be tazered if he doesn't relax (don't-tazer-me-bro got warned first if he didn't calm down that he'd be tazered). But, of course after the suspect gets tazered **** does go easier for everyone. Slap the cuffs on, he's a the station.
Now one thing is apparent. Pain is all that criminals will respond to if their trying to get away when everything that you told them is as if they didn't hear you because they're not listening. Pain is what will make them listen, not to mention pain with fast recovery and no lasting affects...it's as humane as ****ing pain gets i mean geez, how much more gentle could receiving pain be. The normal way to get pain is to get injured or close to it.
Now i know for a fact this will be dissected and taken apart for what will be thought as my only claims on how a tazer (despite my past posts) should be used as well as what has happened to my past posts :lol: Who really the **** cares if i'm right, this thread is so repetitive now. All i know is that i'm trying to pay attention to what happened in the video because that is what happened, and it is not hear-say. Nor is it people who don't really pay attention to the video and are like, that's excessive force and tazers are bad. The short fact is that tazers aren't bad, there's more good that comes from them than bad otherwise there'd be a recall. the other short fact is that dont-tazer-me-bro guy got warned a couple of times that he'd be tazered if he didn't stop struggling, so then he struggled more(proof that dont-tazer-me-bro guy is a retard journalism student) and he got tazed.
Here are my other claims:
I endorse tazering your cats and dogs. It's insanely fun, you really should try it sometime because shock collars don't teach your pets like a tazer for a human will. Hell i even go tazer hunting here in alaska, man that black bear didn't know what hit it, and then i pulled out my gun.
-
Here are my other claims:
I endorse tazering your cats and dogs. It's insanely fun, you really should try it sometime because shock collars don't teach your pets like a tazer for a human will. Hell i even go tazer hunting here in alaska, man that black bear didn't know what hit it, and then i pulled out my gun.
And while I agree with your previous statements, for this last bit I'd taser you. In the nads. Again and again and again and again....and again. Till I ran out of juice. Then I would get another battery...or I'd just hook it up to the city power grid.
It would be insanely fun to watch someone suffer for nothing but your own amusement, right?....yeah...
-
I'll bet he just forgot a rolleyes. Otherwise, I guess I'll have to agree with you.
-
Yes i was making a joke with the last bit :)
EDIT:I may have spoken too soon on other peoples part since i don't endorse tazering people's dog or go tazer hunting. Least to say tazering this dog was better than shooting it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0u0jb-qxJE). And i can see cattle ranchers picking up this product to help escape charging bulls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9rXDmRasJs). That's right, someone did make a tazer specifically for animals...it says not for human use...(idk if it'd replace the cattle prod).
-
So basically, why is this thing news? With the first clip you'll get a totally different idea of the events than with the second clip. When looking through the second clip, the only comment I can give is that compared to police here, these guys have a really low level of tasering people and that here we don't even have police in the universities, hence the comment of the responsibility of the panel chair. Or someone from the audience could have said to him to beat it. This was not even a police issue in my opinion.
The whole incident is blown out of proportions, but this I should have suspected before, since it is coming from US. From time to time I get the same impression of the news coming from there, (ahem, I get the same feeling from US companies quotations) huge headlines and everything and only later you'll get to hear that the things didn't go exactly that way while the press hopes that they will get away with small "details" and "inaccuracies". More accurate reporting is needed. By the way, the same stuff applies to United Kingdom also, but in lesser amount. So why is this even news?
I have no more to say about this stuff.
Mika
-
I realize that most of that is probably intended to be rhetorical, and this is straying far off topic, but you're completely correct.
Every single story must be an absolute sensation to gain attention and cause discussion, especially heated, in order to get more people watching the news and thereby their commercials and ads. Otherwise, it's just the same old boring news. Similarly, "activists" of any kind will twist truth to the point of breaking in order to get attention, and more importantly, support by leaving out information and focusing any and all discussion on how bad something is rather than WHAT it is or by giving an entire picture, much like the editing of the videos.
The most amusing demonstration of this that I can think of is when Pen & Teller had a girl going around at a 'save the earth' rally of some sort, getting tons of people to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. All these people were caught up in the idea of 'yeah, lets ban that horrible substance' because in humans it causes sweating, constant urination, prolonged exposure can cause skin to rot away and it can cause respiratory failure! OMGWTFLMAONAISE! BAN BAN BAN! :rolleyes:
I just found this great site about it, so just in case someone doesn't know what dihydrogen monoxide is, go here: http://www.dhmo.org/ (http://www.dhmo.org/) :lol: