Cop Tasers Fleeing Handcuffed Girl, Head injuries put her in vegetative state

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 16 NEXT
 

She was on drugs, and running from police is STUPID.

But wtf is with americans? Fat cops that can not sprint for few meters should do desk jobs. (He claimed that he did not want to tackle her as he thought she would get hurt... DO THEY RECEIVE TRAINING HOW TO TACKLE PEOPLE AT ALL?! or is it only their experience in american "football" (one more reason to play rugby - learn how to tackle in less dangerous way))

Anyway, excessive use of force here is obvious.

ElPatron:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Plus, you have to give the cop credit for remembering he was a taser and not busting out the gun and shooting her in the chest 10 times. Thats an improvement over what we have seen recently.

Allow me to disagree.

In the "recent" shootings there were always someone who had their life on the line.

The most recent I can remember involved a hoodie protecting someone from the tazer electrodes. He was ready to cleave a cop's head off in two.

10 bullets on the chest are an improvement over the expenses of training more police officers and paying for someone's stay in prison. Estimating $1 for each bullet, it was a pretty good investment.

EDIT: Okay, I have been reading some posts.

Tackling her would probably cause brain damage as well. Why are we getting so mad at the cop?

Sorry, but whats your point? Shooting them is good because it costs taxpayers less so thats the way to go?

Well she was a criminal that tried to run and got hurt because of yet another stupid decision she made, i can't really blame the cop, he couldnt have known that this would happen.

Timberwolf0924:
Moral of the Story

Don't think you're some hardass who's going to get away and your ass won't get tazered.
"Oh no poor girl, boo hoo!"
Dumb broad shouldn't have acted stupid, cause now she really is.

You're the argument for compulsory sterilisation at birth :)

FelixG:
The fact that she started doing drugs is her fault, unless someone held her down and forced her to smoke/inject the drugs and shoved those pills down her throat.

The fact that she got addicted would also be her fault as well for doing them in the first place.

Well, I respectfully disagree.

Arkaniack:
She was on drugs, and running from police is STUPID.

But wtf is with americans? Fat cops that can not sprint for few meters should do desk jobs. (He claimed that he did not want to tackle her as he thought she would get hurt... DO THEY RECEIVE TRAINING HOW TO TACKLE PEOPLE AT ALL?! or is it only their experience in american "football" (one more reason to play rugby - learn how to tackle in less dangerous way))

Anyway, excessive use of force here is obvious.

He weighed 260 pounds she weighed 100.
I'm no mathematician but i know that if a 260 pound fat policemen lands on a skinny 100 pound girl i know who is gonna break allot of bones.
Now tell me if you were chasing her and weighed 260 pounds and you had to choose between tackling her and Possible breaking her ribcage and possible damage her vital organs.
Or tazing her making her fall on the ground and maybe break her nose and cause heavy scrape wounds .
What would you do?
To me the answer is obvious.

GrandmaFunk:
fat cop too lazy to bother running after a tiny girl more than 20 feet.

way to go, hero.

America, **** yeah!
I know I had a point beforehand, kinda forgot it. It had something to do with making the life of the ruling class easier.

That sucks to be her, but she shouldn't have run from the cop in the first place.
Does that mean he should have tazed her? Course not, I hate everything tazers stand for.

Corporal Yakob:

will1182:
Oh god, another one of these "HEARTLESS MONSTER COP MUNCHES ON BABY'S SKULL" threads.

People, people. She was resisting arrest, in which case the use of force is authorized, and in this case, necessary. Secondly, he used a taser; her brain injury resulted from her falling and slamming her head on the pavement afterward. If you say he should have chased her down instead, without a weapon, his only option would have been to tackle her to the ground, which would have produced the exact same result. Thirdly, it's easy to be a judgmental bastard from behind your keyboard where you can pick apart every little detail of the situation using as much time as you need. The fact is, this cop was only doing his job, and his actions fell well within established protocol.

I was going to post something along the lines of "Oh ye bastard that looked like it hurt, still, don't run from the police" but then I saw this comment and decided to quote (steal) it because its much better. This incident is unfortunate but lets remember that she ran away from the police while cuffed instead of complying and the cop was not a blood thirsty madman.

I'm going to jump on the "this comment says everything I feel about this thread" bandwagon, hope you don't mind :D

Chevalier noir:

RoBi3.0:

Was the Cops reactions over blown probably, but ultimately her condition is a direct result of her choice to run. Had she not run she would not have been tased. had she not run giving the cop an opportunity to tase her she would not been a vegetable.

And again she was not tased because she may have been accused of 2 hit and runs she was tased trying to flee from arrest. Which is illegal, so regardless of her involvement to the suspected hit and runs she was still breaking the law.

Furthermore I am not really arguing the legal or moral right and wrong of this. I am arguing that the simplest way this could have been prevented is from the women to have not tried to flee in the first place. She made the choice to run first. The fat cop's decision to taser her came later and was the direct result of the women's decision to run, therefore it is her fault.

As a rule I assume all Cops are dicks and therefore try my hardest not to give them a reason to shoot at me.

I'm not standing here accusing the cop of murder, what happened to the girl was arguably both their faults. But I'm not putting any blame for her injuries on anyone.

Yes, fleeing from arrest is illegal. Yes that means she was breaking the law. Those are facts. It is also true that the cop using his taser on a handcuffed fleeing suspect was also wrong, a violation of his code of conduct and his officer training.

Before any emotion enters into this, without blaming anyone for her brain injuries, the cop is still in the wrong for using the taser. That is also a black and white clear as crystal fact.

I'm just irritated at the number of people who think the cop was justified using that much force when the rules the police are sworn to uphold say otherwise.

He is a professional authority figure and they should be held to their own standards at least.

you keep saying over and over it is against his training....
Are you a trained law enforcement officer? have you ever been to an academy? have you even gone on a ride along? no? then you have no idea what you are talking about.

Xanthious:

reonhato:
for people saying he was not in the wrong because he was cleared of wrong doing.... this was in america, he could have pumped 20 bullets into her head, took a piss on her body and rape her corpse and still be cleared of any wrong doing just because hes a cop.

he clearly used a taser in a situation in which a taser is not suppose to be used and can be overly dangerous, its his fault she is basically dead.

His fault? Really? So it's his fault she made a series of poor life choices and decided to do drugs then get behind the wheel of a car on drugs and with a suspended license, an action I may add which endangered countless innocent motorists. I guess it's also his fault she then slammed into a few random cars, once again while high and having no license? Then I guess it has to also be his fault she made the decision to try and run after she had been arrested and cuffed?

Here's the thing though, her criminal record doesn't excuse the fact that this cop handled the situation very poorly.

You might not feel sympathy for her given her record, but this same situation can occur with a suspect who has no prior record and is simply scared and confused. The point is that this cop used his taser as a magical "no running away" device, when these weapons should be handled with much greater regard.

you know what is really funny about this thread?
everyone mad because he tazered her, if she had escaped, and hopped in a car and run over someone killing them, they would all be screaming " how come he didn't tazer her???"

rolfwesselius:

He weighed 260 pounds she weighed 100.
I'm no mathematician but i know that if a 260 pound fat policemen lands on a skinny 100 pound girl i know who is gonna break allot of bones.
Now tell me if you were chasing her and weighed 260 pounds and you had to choose between tackling her and Possible breaking her ribcage and possible damage her vital organs.
Or tazing her making her fall on the ground and maybe break her nose and cause heavy scrape wounds .
What would you do?
To me the answer is obvious.

You're comparing the worst possible outcome of one option versus a very light possible outcome of the other. The worst thing that could have happened if someone got tased was that they lose control over their nervous system and suffer major bodily harm. And I would say that the possibility that the officer could've grabbed and restrained the girl, as he's been trained to do, without causing major harm, is probably pretty likely.

There are no angels in this story, but let's not pretend the cop didn't have better options. We can laugh about the fact that he's fat, but he is a cop and he's not incapable of running faster than a 100-lb girl who has her hands cuffed together. There were other cops around - he could've called for help. He's been trained just for this kind of situation and he's probably been in this kind of situation many times before. The suspect was a young girl in a police substation for nonviolent offenses, already handcuffed - there's nothing to suggest that she posed a violent threat. Had she flashed a knife or if she had a record of violence, then the cop's precautions could have justification. But the "non-lethal" tag applied to the taser is misleading. Any weapon can be deadly when used in the right way - or in this case, the wrong way. A small, two-inch pocket knife is unlikely to be deadly, either, but if the cop had stabbed her with that, this wouldn't even be a debate, regardless of the outcome. But a taser is several orders of magnitude more painful and powerful than a small Swiss Army paring blade - you're literally sending thousands of volts through a human body. It may statistically be unlikely to be lethal, but it's still extremely dangerous and that's why cops have rules in place regarding their use.

Cole could've also tried to shoot her in the legs with his gun - that's usually not a killshot. But he had probably been trained and conditioned to not reach for his gun. That same understanding has to apply elsewhere - and it's supposed to. In any properly maintained and organized police department, that is a core belief: weapons are a last resort - any weapon. And Cole probably has heard that at some point.

The girl shouldn't have run.

But Cole shouldn't have pulled the trigger.

What concerns me more is that Cole was cleared of any wrongdoing by the internal review. That is ridiculous - he may not be culpable for the girl's death, but he did use a taser without a clear indication of a threat to himself or to others. He said he was concerned that the girl might run out into traffic - that's not grounds for use of a taser, not when you're almost a hundred yards from the street. That he didn't suffer any internal penalty - a desk job, a demotion, a suspension, a dock in pay - that to me suggests that the internal review was merely cursory and that this is "thin blue line" bullcrap about cops never doing anything against their own that plagues major police bureaus. There have been cops who were literally acting as hired hitmen for organized crime that get away with it for years because cops don't go against their own. They're supposed to be civil servants, but they act like some sort of street gang - "snitches get stitches."

All these threads showing the frightening behaviour of the US police make me terrified to go anywhere near that country. The country just seems insane! And many (though obviously not all) people on this forum and presumably therefore throughout the US support these kinds of behaviour?

I live in the UK. A police officer trying something like this would be facing seriously disciplinary action and probably criminal charges. Because he, you know, broke the law.

Police officers are authorised to use reasonable force. You're telling me that the officer couldn't have caught her? He's within grasping distance of her when they run in from the right! Tazing someone and letting them faceplant into the tarmac ISN'T BLOODY SAFE!

To all those who say "well you shouldn't run from the police": First, there is a reason that the status of 'outlaw' no longer exists throughout most of the world - you are entitled to the protection of the law even if you do act like a tit. And that doesn't entitle the police to do you severe injury when they had absolutely no need to.

Second: although there is context to this video, what if there were not? What if she was running from corrupt police trying to rape her or something? You have to look into the facts of a case and justify your actions. Not simply bow down to the authority of the police.

Policing should be like government: by consent. The US in particular was founded on those ideals, but in recent years both ideals have been severely shaken.

omega 616:
I have to ask "clearly endangering the lives of that individual, yourself, and countless innocents that are mearly driving". How would somebody driving a car, who hit a person lose there lives? I saw a kid get knocked over once, the driver (although panicked) was fine.

The individual endangered herself, not much can be done about that. As stated just above, the driver would have been fine. The cop is paid the put his life on the line (as they always say in those stupid American tv shows like "police wildest car chases 5").

knocking over a kid?
you think thats the same as hitting a loose body at +60 mph?

image

thats what hitting a 250 pound body at 60 mph tends to look like.

there are hundreds of people that die each year from hitting 100-300 pound animals that wander onto the roadways and hit by cars moving at speeds in excess of 50 miles per hour.

a 100 pound woman and 260 pound man is no diffrent then a 100 pound deer or a 260 pound moose.

rolfwesselius:

Arkaniack:
She was on drugs, and running from police is STUPID.

But wtf is with americans? Fat cops that can not sprint for few meters should do desk jobs. (He claimed that he did not want to tackle her as he thought she would get hurt... DO THEY RECEIVE TRAINING HOW TO TACKLE PEOPLE AT ALL?! or is it only their experience in american "football" (one more reason to play rugby - learn how to tackle in less dangerous way))

Anyway, excessive use of force here is obvious.

He weighed 260 pounds she weighed 100.
I'm no mathematician but i know that if a 260 pound fat policemen lands on a skinny 100 pound girl i know who is gonna break allot of bones.
Now tell me if you were chasing her and weighed 260 pounds and you had to choose between tackling her and Possible breaking her ribcage and possible damage her vital organs.
Or tazing her making her fall on the ground and maybe break her nose and cause heavy scrape wounds .
What would you do?
To me the answer is obvious.

Let me ask again "DO THEY RECEIVE TRAINING HOW TO TACKLE PEOPLE AT ALL?!" If you tackle someone like in american "football" you can weight less and still break their bones.
Now think - 45 kg woman vs 117kg fatty. What if he chased her, grabbed her hand and stopped? Worst case - twisted arm, bruised knee.

Arkaniack:
What if he chased her, grabbed her hand and stopped? Worst case - twisted arm, bruised knee.

Fantasy much?

Worst case - Her neck gets snapped and she dies instantly.

And, since you brought up Football Tackling...

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2010/8/9/1610652/tackling-injuries-in-the-nfl

For the last four years, about three hundred players per year suffered season-ending injuries that put them on the Injured Reserve (IR) list. These players suffer injuries that you can't tape up and there's no way to 'play through the pain'. For the most part, these are serious, career threatening injuries.

You know, those are injuries caused by professional athletes who have been trained to safely tackle, and being inflicted on professional athletes who have been trained to safely land after being tackled... Not something you expect amateurs to do safely, especially given the weight difference and no protective equipment.

Also, there's the fact that Football tends to played on grass/AstroTurf, as opposed to asphalt, where the cop would have tackled this moron.

It was bad luck. Not much more than that.

Sorry, news. The controversy is pretty weak on this one.

madwarper:

Arkaniack:
What if he chased her, grabbed her hand and stopped? Worst case - twisted arm, bruised knee.

Fantasy much?

Worst case - Her neck gets snapped and she dies instantly.

And, since you brought up Football Tackling...

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2010/8/9/1610652/tackling-injuries-in-the-nfl

For the last four years, about three hundred players per year suffered season-ending injuries that put them on the Injured Reserve (IR) list. These players suffer injuries that you can't tape up and there's no way to 'play through the pain'. For the most part, these are serious, career threatening injuries.

You know, those are injuries caused by professional athletes who have been trained to safely tackle, and being inflicted on professional athletes who have been trained to safely land after being tackled... Not something you expect amateurs to do safely, especially given the weight difference.

Also, there's the fact that Football tends to played on grass/AstroTurf, as opposed to asphalt, where the cop would have tackled this moron.

"You know, those are injuries caused by professional athletes who have been trained to safely tackle" ... "trained to safely tackle" in american "football"?...

I brought american "football" because it's WORST WAY TO LEARN HOW TO SAFELY TACKLE. Learn to read.
The way I wrote how he should have tried to stop her is SAFER that tazing her or tackling her american "football" way.
But what I am saying. I guess you spent your childhood playing some stupid console games. How would you know something about stopping someone. I spent my childhood playing catch/chase (don't know how is game where you must catch other person is called in english).

A tazer is a weapon which is capable of causing death when used upon certain people. It can cause serious harm through either the shock itself or accidents occuring from the sudden shock and loss of control of your movements. Considering this the fact that it was used instantly withuot any effort beforehand to try to catch the girl is disturbing along with the fact that the cop used it so readily without hesitation or thought. I think this is an issue as it demonstrates that at least some officers show little to no respect for the weapon they have when they use a tazer and the danger involved. He shouldnt have used it when he did because she was of no threat to him, he had not tried less harmful means of apprehending her and she was in a state that left her open to harm if it was used. I dont know what she was thinking and i understand the heat of the moment situation but he should know restraint before he is given access to such a tool.

madwarper:

Arkaniack:
What if he chased her, grabbed her hand and stopped? Worst case - twisted arm, bruised knee.

Fantasy much?

Worst case - Her neck gets snapped and she dies instantly.

And, since you brought up Football Tackling...

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2010/8/9/1610652/tackling-injuries-in-the-nfl

For the last four years, about three hundred players per year suffered season-ending injuries that put them on the Injured Reserve (IR) list. These players suffer injuries that you can't tape up and there's no way to 'play through the pain'. For the most part, these are serious, career threatening injuries.

You know, those are injuries caused by professional athletes who have been trained to safely tackle, and being inflicted on professional athletes who have been trained to safely land after being tackled... Not something you expect amateurs to do safely, especially given the weight difference and no protective equipment.

Also, there's the fact that Football tends to played on grass/AstroTurf, as opposed to asphalt, where the cop would have tackled this moron.

Police officers are not ametuers they are trained to use reasonable force with restraint so as to cause as little harm as possible. They tackle people all the time and rarely harm anyone when its used suitably (i.e tackling a 6 foot tall wide framed man is going to cause less harm than tackling a skinny girl and so a tackle atleast by a normal build police officer is not suitable) If cops are to go around tackling people then they should have proper training the same way they should have restraint and proper training to use a tazer.

Aris Khandr:
And it really isn't their job to run you down if you run.

yes.

yes it is.

While I agree it is stupid to run, especially after the cuffs. It is their job to catch fleeing suspects.

It's all military and police personnel's responsibility to be physically fit and able to exert minimum force. Minimum force in this case was running after the girl and tackling her, but he was criminally obese and couldn't. Therefore, it is the police officer's fault and he should be charged with assault and battery under extremely severe circumstances.

Though, this is from America, the only country in the western world where this kind of offense against humanity is normal, and such, the dickbag will get away with it and will keep his job in spite of his terrible health and uselessness.

Backwards country.

Arkaniack:
I brought american "football" because it's WORST WAY TO LEARN HOW TO SAFELY TACKLE. Learn to read.

As opposed to what? Soccer?

http://www.active.com/soccer/Articles/Tackling__The_most_dangerous_part_of_soccer.htm

Easily, the most dangerous activity in soccer is tackling.

More injuries occur during tackling than during any other activity. Wonder why? Any number of reasons has been mentioned. For example, players with mismatched skills playing against each other could have the better player being cut down by the lesser player.

Arkaniack:
But what I am saying. I guess you spent your childhood playing some stupid console games. How would you know something about stopping someone.

No, what you're saying is that you don't know a single fucking thing about me or my childhood.

And, as for stopping someone, I'd do what my government trained me to do. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

I spent my childhood playing catch/chase (don't know how is game where you must catch other person is called in english).

Tell me, when the catcher has caught the chasee, what happens when the chasee keeps running?

Raddra:

Aris Khandr:
And it really isn't their job to run you down if you run.

yes.

yes it is.

While I agree it is stupid to run, especially after the cuffs. It is their job to catch fleeing suspects.

And they caught her, mission accomplished!

Metalhandkerchief:
It's all military and police personnel's responsibility to be physically fit and able to exert minimum force. Minimum force in this case was running after the girl and tackling her, but he was criminally obese and couldn't. Therefore, it is the police officer's fault and he should be charged with assault and battery under extremely severe circumstances.

Though, this is from America, the only country in the western world where this kind of offense against humanity is normal, and such, the dickbag will get away with it and will keep his job in spite of his terrible health and uselessness.

Backwards country.

Could you explain to me what the term Criminally Obese mean, as it must be a medically term I am apparently not familiar with.

------------------
OT: What I can't wrap my heard around is why people on this forum insist on dragging their shit forum other threads in to completely different and definitely not related in anyway thread. I mean seriously if that topic bothers you so much go to the thread and talk about there are tons of people wanting read and argue about it... in that thread.

EDIT: well fuck, I thought I was in another thread. Joke is on me I guess. I suppose I could edit this out and pretend it didn't happen, but I think it serves me right, it I get laughed at a bit,

madwarper:

Arkaniack:
I brought american "football" because it's WORST WAY TO LEARN HOW TO SAFELY TACKLE. Learn to read.

As opposed to what? Soccer?

http://www.active.com/soccer/Articles/Tackling__The_most_dangerous_part_of_soccer.htm

Easily, the most dangerous activity in soccer is tackling.

More injuries occur during tackling than during any other activity. Wonder why? Any number of reasons has been mentioned. For example, players with mismatched skills playing against each other could have the better player being cut down by the lesser player.

Arkaniack:
But what I am saying. I guess you spent your childhood playing some stupid console games. How would you know something about stopping someone.

No, what you're saying is that you don't know a single fucking thing about me or my childhood.

And, as for stopping someone, I'd do what my government trained me to do. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

I spent my childhood playing catch/chase (don't know how is game where you must catch other person is called in english).

Tell me, when the catcher has caught the chasee, what happens when the chasee keeps running?

"As opposed to what? Soccer?" Wth? where did I say something about football(Soccer)? Tackling in that game is against RULES. What I said was - If you want to tackle someone without breaking their bones don't tackle them like in american "football". Once again - learn2read.

"No, what you're saying is that you don't know a single fucking thing about me or my childhood." Yes. But you leave impression of someone that would taze crying 3 year old to make him stop crying (or " 2 in the chest, 1 in the head") .

"And, as for stopping someone, I'd do what my government trained me to do. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head." American I see. And tries to show off "Military training". Yes that's all you government can teach you. What can I say, warmongers.

"Tell me, when the catcher has caught the chasee, what happens when the chasee keeps running?" You hold them - if you are heavier and holding by hand (above elbow) chasee will land on knees (catcher too sometimes, but hitting head on ground is unlikely. Get some physicist to draw you explanatory picture of how that stop would look like). If you are lighter you fall on your face. "Officer" was heavier almost 3 times in this case.

People make mistakes, she shouldn't have run, he probably shouldn't have tasered her, but it really doesn't deserve all the outrage. Being fat just makes it easier for you people to take the opposite side. 'He's obviously lazy' 'can't be bothered to chase her'
The same mistakes have been made time and again, and if you want your police to be able to be efficient and good at their jobs then you have to accept that they might occasionally go too far, and as much as you try to prevent that it isn't foolproof, you just have to deal with it on the rare occasion when it does happen. The officer in question isn't likely to be going on with day to day life as if nothing has happened.
The only other alternative is to stop them being as ruthless and effective, and then you end up with lawlessness.

Metalhandkerchief:
It's all military and police personnel's responsibility to be physically fit and able to exert minimum force. Minimum force in this case was running after the girl and tackling her, but he was criminally obese and couldn't. Therefore, it is the police officer's fault and he should be charged with assault and battery under extremely severe circumstances.

Though, this is from America, the only country in the western world where this kind of offense against humanity is normal, and such, the dickbag will get away with it and will keep his job in spite of his terrible health and uselessness.

Backwards country.

This.

but - not "and he should be charged with assault and battery under extremely severe circumstances"

It was excessive use of force not an assault. Also it's not a "severe circumstances" - he was on duty and suspect tried to run away.
Anyway - he should be forced to pay to family of injured, and loose his place as an "officer" or be promoted to "desk officer".

She fought the law and the law won.

I'm gonna have to agree with an earlier poster - the controversy on this one is pretty damn weaksauce. Get off your soapboxes.

I shall wade into this. I fear for my sanity.

Blablahb:

They were talking back to me. How dare they upset the authoritarian order where the one in uniform is always right.

Obviously false comparison, being put under arrest for charges unknown cannot be linked to "talking back" in severity. Comparing the upholding of written legislation the "authoritarian order" is also an obviously false comparsion. Jesus its like youre trying to be intellectually dishonest. You might believe what you say but making obviously false points to prove it is just low.

Much like running away, talking is clearly a good grounds for beating someone up mercilessly, don't you agree? Actually, talking to someone and disagreeing with them is obviously more agressive than running away, so it's an even better reason.

Strawman. No one is trying to defend beating someone up mercilessly. Again comparison to nothing. Id say the employment of a single tazor shot is not the same as a merciless malicious beating with intent to hurt. Again obviously false comparison. You are attacking points no one has made. But please if you want to redeem yourself find someone in the thread who advocated malicious and brutal purposefull violence toward the subject. Ill give you time.

I wasn't aware that in the US trials had been abolished for charges other than terrorism and copyright infringement as well. Since when has that been?

Trials are awesome. The woman would have got one. If she was innocent the trial would have shown that and the woman had nothing to fear. I might be presumptuous in saying this but fleeing is usually an admission of guilt. As such its the officers duty to detain the suspect so they can be BROUGHT to trial.

Exactly. Just about everybody gets caught later on anyway, or report themselves because living a fugitive sucks.

This is just factually incorrect. By your logic this list cannot exist.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted

People would rather be fugitives than punished for their crimes. This list proves that. Again obviously false arguement.

She had cuffs on and was running *away*. How can that possibly be violent? And she's dead. How could the violence not be deadly? Besides, like others have already argued, even US policeman are trained to understand what tasing someone does. That policeman made a concious decision to expose someone to grave harm, resulting in death, rather than trying to run after her.

Yay another strawman. And youre purposefully misreading posts now. NOT PEACEFULL does NOT mean violent. It means not peacefull. Please dont make such obvious jumps in logic and reading. When he said not peacefull. He meant anything that wasnt a calm collected reaction. That counts fleeing and screaming when remaining calm and collected is a better way to prove innocence. Id hardly call being tazed "grave harm". I dont defend his actions at all to be honest. I kind of agree with you. But i refuse to see my points argued so poorly and dishonestly. He should have chased her. And should have been fit enough to do so. However the tazor is NOT grave harm is is often used without grave harm being inflicted. Like VERY often. 99.99% of tazor uses dont result in death.

Which is tied to rules. Rules like "Don't kill people if you can just grab a hold of them". Although obviously, that rule didn't make it into the US police handbook. Much like was shown in the summary executions of Kenneth Harding and Michael Nida, and many other cases of weapon-crazed US cops shooting first and checking if it was allowed later.

False comparison. "Dont kill people if you can grab them" was never an issue in this case. It doesnt apply at all. He never made a decision of "grab or kill" ever. And the way you use that implies that it was. It was not. The decision was "taze or grab" and your line should read "Dont use a little more force if you can use less force" since thats exactly what happened here. I mean christ she hit her head. ANY method by which he brought her to the ground could have resulted in that. Any. Shes hardly going to go down easily when panniced and running.

I hate guns too.

Which is why he should be sacked from the police, and convicted for manslaughter, but not murder.

Yay we have the same conclusion. Yep it was manslaughter. Complete accident but it basically was. She died by his fault even if it was a COMPLETE accident. Because it was avoidable. Not murder. Not "KILLING!" but accidental death. It happens. Its sad. He should be convited and kicked out of the force for being incapable of catching suspects without using a tazor.

That's not true. He used something close to maximal violence to aprehend her. The only more violent option would've been to draw his firearm and perform an extrajudicial execution on the spot.

When the THREE options are.

1. Grab and tackle
2. Tazor.
3. Shoot to injure
4. Shoot to kill

Tazor is actually pretty far down the slider. Its WAY below shoot to injure. Its the least violent option one can do from afar. And option one had an equal chance of her hitting her head as options 2 3 and 4. Not a lot he can do to make sure she falls ok. Tackling is safest ill give you but tazing is hardly "maximal violence". Its pretty damn far down. I mean it just hurts like hell for 99.99% of people, it doesnt cause any lasting harm.

I made it.

You have a valid point but everything you say is either a strawman, an obviously wrong comparison or just made up stuff. Stop mis reading posts, making up points and drawing wrong comparisons. Its annoying and not intellectually honest.

......being arrested for 2 prior hit and runs and driving without a licence, im sorry but its sucks she is now braindead, but dont screw with the police, was the guy justified to use the taser, i think he was. people want to be safe to be able to live without the fear of someone else taking what they have be it a phone a wallet with money in or even their lives in certain cases. the people who are there to make sure that happens are the police so stop tieing their hands when it comes to dealing with criminals. If the guys dept decides their is no wrong doing then their isnt, if it fell outside of the grounds of procedure and he couldnt justify the use they would have punished him in some way.

Jonluw:

Blablahb:

Jonluw:
Yeah, using the taser was unnecessary.
However, I can't feel bad for her, as she was clearly already sufficiently brain damaged to try to run from a cop after being handcuffed.

That's plain stupid to say. You face years and years in prison under barbaric conditions for something as small as drug possesion, the cop they send after you is an obese slob who can never keep up, and you say running is a weird choice?

Running is the only logical choice in that situation.

Resisting arrest, running away from an armed officer of the law who is attempting to keep you immobilized, is the only logical option?
I don't know what kind of logic you subscribe to, but that certainly isn't what I would've done.

And of course, anyone who thinks differently to you is obviously braindamaged, because you're so perfect with your human compassion and tolerance.

Dumbfish1:

Jonluw:

Blablahb:
That's plain stupid to say. You face years and years in prison under barbaric conditions for something as small as drug possesion, the cop they send after you is an obese slob who can never keep up, and you say running is a weird choice?

Running is the only logical choice in that situation.

Resisting arrest, running away from an armed officer of the law who is attempting to keep you immobilized, is the only logical option?
I don't know what kind of logic you subscribe to, but that certainly isn't what I would've done.

And of course, anyone who thinks differently to you is obviously braindamaged, because you're so perfect with your human compassion and tolerance.

Well, I am known for my great reserves of compassion.

So yeah, anyone who thinks that trying to run away from the police - in a situation where they quite clearly can't hope to escape - is a good idea, or that it's logical somehow, probably possesses less than the average amount of gray matter in my humble and non-judgemental opinion.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked