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

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 16 NEXT
 

Mortai Gravesend:
You really ought to just admit the fact you were wrong. I said nothing of responsibility, and I was addressing the people who said she deserved it, so it was completely idiotic to act as if I did otherwise.

Every time you respond, you manage to do something worse. "Apparent trolling" indeed, should I remind you that calling someone a troll for disagreeing with you is against the forum rules and code of conduct, in addition to making you sound like a shallow 12 year old?

Aris Khandr:
I can't really feel too bad for her. It takes a special kind of stupid to run from the police AFTER you're already handcuffed. And it really isn't their job to run you down if you run. If I had the tool to stop you from running right now, rather than continuing to chase you for however long, I'd do it too.

So the real question is... was she brain dead before the tase?

she got what she deserved, nothing more to say

Freezy_Breezy:

Mortai Gravesend:
You really ought to just admit the fact you were wrong. I said nothing of responsibility, and I was addressing the people who said she deserved it, so it was completely idiotic to act as if I did otherwise.

Every time you respond, you manage to do something worse. "Apparent trolling" indeed, should I remind you that calling someone a troll for disagreeing with you is against the forum rules and code of conduct, in addition to making you sound like a shallow 12 year old?

I said apparent. Also, you didn't disagree with me, your post was just a personal attack on me. Would you prefer flaming? I guess I'll change it to that. But either way it's been reported and we'll see what the mods think ;D

You're still not addressing my points btw. Is there some reason? Like the fact I showed how inexcusably worthless your post was? I'm still waiting to see why you were whining about responsibility when I said nothing of it, and whether I deserve a Nobel prize for pointing out the obvious to you, that I was addressing the people who did say she deserved it. If you want to talk about maturity, we can talk about your refusal to address that.

Mortai Gravesend:
I said apparent. Also, you didn't disagree with me, your post was just a personal attack on me. Would you prefer flaming? I guess I'll change it to that. But either way it's been reported and we'll see what the mods think ;D

You're still not addressing my points btw. Is there some reason? Like the fact I showed how inexcusably worthless your post was? I'm still waiting to see why you were whining about responsibility when I said nothing of it, and whether I deserve a Nobel prize for pointing out the obvious to you, that I was addressing the people who did say she deserved it. If you want to talk about maturity, we can talk about your refusal to address that.

"Personal attack", yes, quite. Wait. No, that's just... I don't even know. But sure. I'd like to see at which point I said anything about you in that first post... But hey, it's your delusion, and you're entitled to it.

Are you implying deserving something and responsibility have no link?

Shocking the number of people that think she deserved it. Shame on you - its that attitude that allows these things to happen unpunished.
I doubt the cop actually meant her harm, but he showed a remarkable degree of incompetence and laziness. Clearly, there is a trigger happy culture with tasers which comes from a lack of understanding just how dangerous the weapon really is. This was an easy job; she was around3 feet away from him - any cop worth his salt could've caught her.

Then again, I come from a culture where our police wield no weapons or firearms - and still manage to deal with armed thugs, scumbags and junkies. In a system that arms police, a weapon, even if it is 'only' a taser, should always be a lack resort, where other people or the officer's life is in danger. Seems like a simple principal to me!

dystopiaINC:

evilneko:
Okay this makes it even worse for the cop: http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2012/february/383311/Exclusive:-Trooper-defends-tasing-new-video-shows-suspect-out-of-handcuffs

In the new video, Maudsley is seen in the back of Cole's cruiser after being arrested, managing to get her right hand free from handcuffs and eventually playing with her hair. At one point, it appears she tries to open the cruiser's door, but can't.

As Cole pulls into the Pinellas Park FHP Substation, Maudsley works to slip the handcuff back on, but it's too late.

"I took this off," Maudsley tells Cole.

"Put it back on," he told her.

Cole puts the handcuff back on Muadsley's wrist and escorts her into the substation.

Forty minutes later, video shows Maudsley running from the substation before she is tased with her hands cuffed in front of her and slams down to the parking lot ground.

This didn't happen at the scene of a crime, it happened at a police station! Y'know, the kind of place where there are other cops around to help out.

"I know that I can't just jump on her. I'm three times her weight. If we go down, one, or both of us, is going to get hurt. The taser is the intermediate weapon of choice," he says.

Well, there is that, but....

The investigator asks Cole if he considered Maudsley falling and injuring herself if he tased her.

"No."

Idiot.

wow just wow.

first of all she would have to have switched her cuffs a second time while in the station since he said he didn't cuff her from the front. so she was removing her cuffs at will.

he said he didn't want to tackle her because of his weight as in HE MIGHT CRUSH HER. that doesn't make him an idiot he just didn't think that her falling on her own with out a fat man in top of her was going to cause brain damage. the fact that he was LOOKING OUT FOR HER SAFETY BY NOT CRUSHING HER WITH OVER DOUBLE HER BODY WEIGHT is pretty clear in this article it doesn't make him look worse.

I'm sorry you can't see how much of an idiot that cop apparently is. Hurr durr I'm gonna taser someone running at full tilt on an asphalt surface no way they'll get hurt derp derp!

Both parties are responsible for their actions completely, of course. I imagine whatever desperate thoughts were going through the girl's mind at the time made running seem like the best option - though I could only speculate what they were. In her mind, perhaps death was preferable at the time to capture...a rather sad state of affairs no matter how you look at it(unless you're a callous, self-absorbed fool).

The officer didn't make the best call. The suspect is unarmed even if she did escape her handcuffs and has no means of escape but by foot. His training should have prepared him to weigh the possibility of what did occur. Worst case scenario, she escapes and they are forced to alert other officers to her presence or track her down again. Considering that she didn't appear particularly dangerous, that seems preferable to risking murder on capture (an officer's job is to apprehend criminals so they can be tried, not be judge, jury, executioner besides the rare cases when lives are in immediate danger and there's no other option). Besides, there are plenty of ways to restrain a person without risking permanent injury to them that police are trained in.

None of this speaks to the root problems which lead to this scenario though. Honestly, I don't see how any can be okay with this sort of tragedy happening regardless of who is "to blame". We are all as much responsible for sitting here, callously condemning people to death while maintaining our comfortable vacuous complacency, refusing to genuinely address the underlying problems. Many of the responses in this tread are indicators of just how deep the real problem goes...frankly, it makes me ill.

Freezy_Breezy:

Mortai Gravesend:
I said apparent. Also, you didn't disagree with me, your post was just a personal attack on me. Would you prefer flaming? I guess I'll change it to that. But either way it's been reported and we'll see what the mods think ;D

You're still not addressing my points btw. Is there some reason? Like the fact I showed how inexcusably worthless your post was? I'm still waiting to see why you were whining about responsibility when I said nothing of it, and whether I deserve a Nobel prize for pointing out the obvious to you, that I was addressing the people who did say she deserved it. If you want to talk about maturity, we can talk about your refusal to address that.

"Personal attack", yes, quite. Wait. No, that's just... I don't even know. But sure. I'd like to see at which point I said anything about you in that first post... But hey, it's your delusion, and you're entitled to it.

Well let's see... which post did I snip like that? Was it your first post or the reply? I thought it was a pretty easy question, but apparently not. Answer: It was your second. So let's see... which one did I say was just a personal attack? Hmm. Clearly the first! Oh wait no, that's stupid, the second of course.

Are you implying deserving something and responsibility have no link?

No. But not deserving to be brain dead is not a comment on responsibility when I said that no one deserves it. Do I get another Nobel Prize in the Obvious category?

Mortai Gravesend:
Tazing seems like it may have been justified since she was running at the highway and had already proven reckless.

I agree if you run you are likely to get hurt and it is too bad about the brain damage if it is permanent she will continue to be a burden on society druggy morons at least have a chance to be productive one day.

Cyberbob87:
Shocking the number of people that think she deserved it. Shame on you - its that attitude that allows these things to happen unpunished.
I doubt the cop actually meant her harm, but he showed a remarkable degree of incompetence and laziness. Clearly, there is a trigger happy culture with tasers which comes from a lack of understanding just how dangerous the weapon really is. This was an easy job; she was around3 feet away from him - any cop worth his salt could've caught her.

Then again, I come from a culture where our police wield no weapons or firearms - and still manage to deal with armed thugs, scumbags and junkies. In a system that arms police, a weapon, even if it is 'only' a taser, should always be a lack resort, where other people or the officer's life is in danger. Seems like a simple principal to me!

Incompetence and laziness?

he admitted he was 265 lbs, and that he was trying to hurt her as little as possible by not tackling her to the ground, which would have caused her more injuries.

But I suppose it is more fun to make snap judgments on people doing their jobs without lookin into their side of the story.

EDIT: And it wasnt the weapon that caused her brain damage, it was her hitting her head on the ground after the fall, which would have been worse if he had tried to stop her physically.

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

Actually no, it is their job to chase a running subject down. If they resist with force they are authorized to use force, but if they resist with escape they arent. If they resist with escape 'after' using force you can shoot them in the leg or something. There are some pretty strict rules on the subject and im not a policeman so I dont know more than some basics, but yea. No. You are not allowed to use a tazer on a running girl.

Nikolaz72:
You are not allowed to use a tazer on a running girl.

Yeah, you are, the guy got cleared after an investigation.

Mortai Gravesend:
No. But not deserving to be brain dead is not a comment on responsibility when I said that no one deserves it. Do I get another Nobel Prize in the Obvious category?

You get a Nobel Prize in the "Couldn't write a clear sentence to save your life" category. I'm sorry for introducing more than one factor into the discussion, if I'd known you couldn't handle it I would have stayed away.

Let me put it to you this way. When you deserve something, it's due to your actions, is it not? Hence, the link to responsibility (i.e. your actions) is paramount. Her actions (running away from the police) meant that she put herself in danger by being an idiot. Is it, therefore, valid to say she deserved what she got?

Why yes. Yes it is.

Nikolaz72:

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

Actually no, it is their job to chase a running subject down. If they resist with force they are authorized to use force, but if they resist with escape they arent. If they resist with escape 'after' using force you can shoot them in the leg or something. There are some pretty strict rules on the subject and im not a policeman so I dont know more than some basics, but yea. No. You are not allowed to use a tazer on a running girl.

Well you obviously have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

You dont even know the basics like you claim to.

The very first thing you learn, is that you NEVER draw your weapon unless you are planning on killing with it. You dont aim for the leg or anything, when you use a gun you use it to kill, it is not a less than lethal weapon, you dont use it to disable, you use it to kill, and you treat that power with respect.

And yes, you are allowed to use a tazer on a running girl, he did, it was allowed, he was cleared of ANY wrong doing.

Freezy_Breezy:

Mortai Gravesend:
No. But not deserving to be brain dead is not a comment on responsibility when I said that no one deserves it. Do I get another Nobel Prize in the Obvious category?

You get a Nobel Prize in the "Couldn't write a clear sentence to save your life" category. I'm sorry for introducing more than one factor into the discussion, if I'd known you couldn't handle it I would have stayed away.

You're introducing it as if I was already talking about it. Which is simply either dishonest or a show of ignorance.

Let me put it to you this way. When you deserve something, it's due to your actions, is it not? Hence, the link to responsibility (i.e. your actions) is paramount. Her actions (running away from the police) meant that she put herself in danger by being an idiot. Is it, therefore, valid to say she deserved what she got?

Why yes. Yes it is.

Why, no, it isn't valid to say she got what she deserved. See, apparently in your overly simplified world, everything that a person causes themselves, the deserve. In the real world, that's not the case. Sometimes people bring down disproportionate consequences on themselves through stupidity. They don't deserve to suffer, but hey the world's unfair. When it gets stupid is when people say they deserve it. But go on, I'm sure ignorance is bliss.

Also, learn2logic. If we lay out your premises and conclusion they don't follow.

1. When you deserve something it is due to your actions.
2. There is a link with responsibility to action
3. Her actions were stupid
Conclusion: She deserved it

Which is just terribly flawed. It assumes that a link between the two means that consequences are always deserved. If you deserve something it is due to your actions. It is a basic logical fallacy to then try and use it the other way around. "If x then y" does not imply "If y then x". Don't be stupid.

Cyberbob87:
Shocking the number of people that think she deserved it. Shame on you - its that attitude that allows these things to happen unpunished.
I doubt the cop actually meant her harm, but he showed a remarkable degree of incompetence and laziness. Clearly, there is a trigger happy culture with tasers which comes from a lack of understanding just how dangerous the weapon really is. This was an easy job; she was around3 feet away from him - any cop worth his salt could've caught her.

Then again, I come from a culture where our police wield no weapons or firearms - and still manage to deal with armed thugs, scumbags and junkies. In a system that arms police, a weapon, even if it is 'only' a taser, should always be a lack resort, where other people or the officer's life is in danger. Seems like a simple principal to me!

Your Uk cops do not even come close to dealing what American cops do.

Try putting a squad of UK cops in front of a Mexican cartel, and you have a group of body bags before breakfast. Since when does a highly organized criminal organization face off against UK cops? Who have military grade equipment, and military training?

I find it hilarious how foreigners, especially ones from the UK, think that since their cops don't have to deal with it that no other cop has to deal with it. I wouldn't be surprised if the same people say "well why don't they head to mcdonalds and buy food?" at starving African tribals.

America has an open border, and has a much different reality than the UK. In fact, the rest of the world doesn't even follow UK rules. Get used to it.

America has done a lot of research on tasers, and found little chance of actual damage. Her being brain dead came from hitting the floor, not from the taser. She would have had the same injury if he tackled her.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Maybe busting out the taser was unnecessary since, well, she was right there, but on the other hand she was running. So yeah. Unfortunate, but shit happens.

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.

This.

Yes, it's unfortunate she's in a bad state, and yes, the cop should've actually got off his arse to get her, but it could've been a lot worse considering that every thread about police brutality I've read on the Escapist in recent months has been where a cop has literally just shot someone dead for a trivial reason.

So yeah. Unfortunate, uneccessary, but still an improvement.
Not really much else I can say here.

Nikolaz72:

you can shoot them in the leg or something.

Uh, No.

Myth. More Hollywood magic. First of all, do you know how dangerous a shot in the leg really is? Probably not, because folks in movies treat it like the most survivable wound. Two words: femoral artery. You can bleed out in seconds from just a knick. So, no, it's not "safer." There is no such thing as "shooting to wound." Every shot that hits can kill a person, so every shot should be treated as lethal.

But aside from that, there's a reason police are trained to shoot for "center mass." It is not because that's where the vital organs are, or because it's more lethal (though both of those are true). It is because it presents the largest target, more mass to absorb the energy of the bullet, and thus less chance of the bullet bypassing or going through the target to hit something else. A leg is a tiny, fast target, and it is incredibly difficult to hit even for a trained shooter--almost as hard to hit as the head.

It's safer for everyone to shoot center mass. Also, because there's more energy transferred into the body, that force goes toward stopping the target, which is our goal anyhow. If you're shooting, you aim for center mass.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.257862-Things-You-Might-Incorrectly-Believe-About-Guns?page=1

Whatever you say, you have to be a moron to say that he had to pull out a tazer to get that darn girl that's a meter away from him.

Wow, yet another thread full of people expecting the police to be some sort of supercomputing robots whose slightest mistake should result in immediate termination and off with their head and etc.

So tell me, what would you have done in this situation?
a) in the 0.5 seconds you had available, go to the gym, work out and lose weight then come all the way back weighing 200 pounds less and run after the girl
b) use your super space brain to compute the exact angle, torque and inertia and see that using a taser would cause her to fall and OBVIOUSLY DIE
c) wave her goodbye because there's obviously a guarranteed 100% chance she'll turn herself in the following days, and definitely not do drugs and further hit-and-runs in the future, because that's just obviously obvious and people do that all the time
d) Use your only reliable means of stopping her with the least chance of a lethal result. Which is totally lethal because it was lethal this time and you should have predicted the future.

Hindsight bias much?

Oh well, it happens. Blaming the cop for being lazy is ridiculous. Chances are, you would have done the same thing.

I didn't read the article (and I'm not going too after someone posted a beautiful timbit that shows just how impartial it is), but she doesn't appear to be in a vegetative state, she managed to sit up, lay down and move her arms.

Also you can't fault really fault the cops here. She started to run after being restrained and someone else said she was high out of her mind. You can't reason with people that don't have the capacity to reason.

Blablahb:

Rednog:
I'm sorry, what?
Take a step?
Yea, a full out escape/run from police station is not a step.

Please answer the question, yes or no is sufficient. Is murder justified?

You're being ridiculous. You can't just go all crazy on someone who is being perfectly reasonable.

Take a step = murder? What are you babbling about.

OP: While it is a pretty disturbing video, at the end of the day she was resisting arrest and everyone knows that's a bad idea. The fact that she was a criminal, and a very stupid one at that makes people care even less.

He should have chased her down, but tazing her was also acceptable IMO. Freak accidents happen, just be happy it wasn't a cop dying this time.

Hopefully this teaches people that running from the police is a foolish idea and that it can lead to even worse consequences. Running from the police is one of the dumbest things a person can do.

godofallu:
just be happy it wasn't a cop dying this time.

Unfortunately, most people here would probably rather a cop die than someone else. If only they knew how many stories never get told where a cop does great things, or where a cop dies and no one notices except other cops.

FelixG:

Nikolaz72:

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

Actually no, it is their job to chase a running subject down. If they resist with force they are authorized to use force, but if they resist with escape they arent. If they resist with escape 'after' using force you can shoot them in the leg or something. There are some pretty strict rules on the subject and im not a policeman so I dont know more than some basics, but yea. No. You are not allowed to use a tazer on a running girl.

Well you obviously have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

You dont even know the basics like you claim to.

The very first thing you learn, is that you NEVER draw your weapon unless you are planning on killing with it. You dont aim for the leg or anything, when you use a gun you use it to kill, it is not a less than lethal weapon, you dont use it to disable, you use it to kill, and you treat that power with respect.

And yes, you are allowed to use a tazer on a running girl, he did, it was allowed, he was cleared of ANY wrong doing.

Oh well, maybe its different from where we live. Over here shit has to go down for police to even be allowed to use physical force for apprehension, I forget that the US is a bit more. . . . Liberal, with their laws surrounding lethal weaponry.

I wouldn't be surprised if she was faking.

She sat up, she isn't a vegetable if she can sit up after being tazed. Clearly she did not hit her head very hard, even from the video you can see she did not hit it much at all...her hands were in FRONT of her, so she had the ability to break her fall somewhat, even though she was cuffed.

From what I understand, she wasn't exactly a model citizen anyway, so its hard to feel bad for her.

Karma catches up with everyone.

he was right on her asshe didn't need the taser. If she had more of a lead on him I'd say let it slide, but he was WAY too close to call that justified.

DoPo:

omega 616:
Which is why it says in the English highway code don't swerve for any animal, instead of a dog dying a few people did.

If you really want to avoid hitting something, emergency brake, providing the people behind aren't stupidly close there should be no problem. Swerving is a stupid idea, can hit anything when you do and you lose control. Braking just means a little whiplash and maybe a few sore heads from butting things (for people no wearing seat belts).

ABS is designed for harsh braking and having a safe distance is there so if there is an emergency braking person in front it means you don't ram them.

While I applaud how well you handled the situation while 1) not being there 2) sitting comfortably in front of a screen, I can only hope that everybody else preserve the peace of mind like you did when two people suddenly jump in front of them while on the highway. Also, I hope all drivers who do see in their way, treat them like dogs and hit them, rather than risk their own safety because they all think rationally and calmly under such situations.

And I'm sure that if the girl managed to run to a street/highway and got hit by a car nobody would question why didn't the police officer stop her sooner when he had the means. Tackling/tasing her is certainly not preferable to a traffic accident.

You thoroughly debunked my two anecdotal evidence and now we must bow down to your one.

...

Frankly, you come across as a bit short-sighted. Lose our sense of humour? That sounded incredibly offensive to me. You didn't seem to take injury and death seriously. Furthermore, thanks to these words you actually sounded like a little kid trying to argue. Why should I value your words when you don't mean to be taken so seriously?

You need to lighten the fuck up, I like bad taste jokes. Since jokes never hurt anybody and they only serve to lighten a mood, where is the harm? After I saw that kid get knocked over the person I was stood with said "OMG the driver is so panicked", to which I said "I know bonnets can be quite expensive sometimes" ... I got some nasty looks for that one. Joking doesn't harm anybody, I didn't want the kid to be hurt or die (he didn't) but being all "omg is he ok, I am so worried and frightened" doesn't help or hurt the kid so why not joke about it?

So what if you were offended, nothing happens to you. All that happens is you sound like a guilt tripper or whiny, like those people who banned that xbox advert where the person is born, flies through the sky and then crashes into his grave. You tell me you were offended to girl trip into making me think I am bad person or something? You must be one easily offended person if I say something about somebody you don't even know or haven't met.

Anyway, on to the meat of the subject.

Everybody in this thread is doing exactly what I am doing, like your examples on the first page with the whole "turning corners" stuff, you are making assumptions there. I am saying what is taught in the UK and why it is that way, to me it makes the most sense ... you see something dart in front of you so you brake hard. Swerving is stupid in all cases, you either smash into parked cars, smash into on coming traffic, basically change lanes without warning or go off road.

The worst you do with braking is knock the thing over that you slammed on for, which is bad depending on the speed when you hit it. Slamming on at 30 would knock them over without much injury, at 60 they will have broken legs and some other trauma.

Imagine being on a motorbike and instinctively choosing to swerve? You = fucked! No, always slam on.

If she had have been hit by a car going 60 of course she would have been worse off than getting tazerd but then the cop would have been scott free 'cos it was her own actions that resulted from that. Not some cop being too lazy to chase her.

Although I have no clue how true it is there is a motorway out of shot, I am taking peoples word for it. I don't know why I am taking peoples word for it 'cos they must have no clue either unless they are from the place the vid is from.

People in this thread treat criminals like dogs anyway, just read some of these "bitch had it coming" posts, it sounds like a "you break the smallest law and you're a slave in the 40's ... you have no rights and are allowed to be beaten for farting wrongly" and you say "I don't seem to take injury and death seriously".

Just look at the second paragraph of the guy below you posted ....

I am not saying somebody running out in front of you is when you are calm and collected, in fact I know it's a time you clench up and panic but that is no excuse for yanking the wheel 90 degrees one way, closing your eyes and praying you don't hurt anything.

So 'cos you have two pieces of anecdotal evidence, which is next to no evidence anyway, you "beat" me? What kind of limp argument is that? Come on you can do better than that, anybody can. Might have well just said "I win 'cos I said"....

psijac:

omega 616:
A criminal is still a person and should be treated as such, not "you did bad thing now pay!". The entire country isn't "obey the law or have the snot beaten into you then charged".

Rules and regulations are there to make sure justice is served no vengeance then justice. It is cops duty to protect and serve people not protect only the good and serve ass whoopings to anybody who steps out of line.

If they step out of line warn them and if they run chase them and capture safely again, minimize accidents ... especially in a country where suing people is a constant thing that happens over every little thing.

I do sometimes think UK police are a little too soft but I rarely see American cops be anything but severe.

The cop could not have foreseen the extent of injures a taser caused the girl. A cook serves peanuts to a diner who is allergic but the diner never informed the cook. Is the cook now a sadistic murderer?

She was involved in two crash crashes where she fled the scene of the accident, with out exchanging insurance information or even stopping to check if the other parties had any injures. She was also high on drugs. How many warning do you give this person? What happens if she got into another car and killed someone? I guess we have to forgive her and let her off with another warning cause at the end of the day she is still a person

It is up to the person ordering to make sure of the whole nut thing and not order something with nuts in ... What kind of weird argument is that? One of those straw men ones? Me thinks so.

She is still a person no matter what she does, while I think some people should be treated less than people (dictators mainly), what she did wasn't that bad in the grand scheme of things. At most she was a druggie who made a few mistakes that day.

She hurt a few people and put others at risk, at risk means next to nothing 'cos people who drive cars safely put people at risk (hit a patch of oil or ice, slide and kill somebody. Changing the radio and cross into the next lane etc). What she did that day doesn't make her some pond scum who should be treated as such, it makes her a human who made mistakes.

What happens you got into a car and killed somebody? The slippery slope argument is crap, should everything go 3 MPH and be coated in thick foam so we all can't hurt each other? I don't think her intention when she woke up was hurt people, as much as drink drivers don't. They all aim to get some place else, not go on a killing rampage GTA style.

If she got into another car you start adding more crimes onto her list of hit and runs, drug abuse, fleeing custody etc. You can't just assume she is going to kill or hurt if she escapes, she might just run to her house or a friends.

It's a human not some wild beast you must stop at all costs, have some humanity.

I'm with the police on this one. She ran away, so she kinda had it coming.

Zx30:
While it's unfortunate that she became injured, there's always consequences for what you do.
She became a drug addict, she caused two hit and runs(possibly injuring innocent people), and ran from the law.

She did everything wrong and she got herself in this position.

No human deserves to suffer pain, but her actions had...unfortunate consequences.

Let me just clarify something, as someone who has been there.

She became a drug addict,

--Most likely NOT her fault

she caused two hit and runs

--Undoubtedly her fault if true

Боже мой this thread is full off retarded chucklefuck onedimensional shitbiscuits. I love it. Reading it is like getting hammered, except you hate yourself afterwards.

TomLikesGuitar:

Zx30:
While it's unfortunate that she became injured, there's always consequences for what you do.
She became a drug addict, she caused two hit and runs(possibly injuring innocent people), and ran from the law.

She did everything wrong and she got herself in this position.

No human deserves to suffer pain, but her actions had...unfortunate consequences.

Let me just clarify something, as someone who has been there.

She became a drug addict,

--Most likely NOT her fault

she caused two hit and runs

--Undoubtedly her fault if true

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 suppose you could blame biology...

And it is fact that she caused two hit and runs

Don't you need a certain level of fitness to join the police force?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked