[Tripper]

Originally Posted by jujumantb

thats exactly what cops ARE fit to do, make judgements about what force is necessary in a certain situation, thats what they train to do. sure, there are guidelines, but nothing in the field is black and white, its ultimately up to the officer to use his training to make a good decision. clearly they arent always right, but that statement is entirely false.

Okay, I read that part before posting it and I honestly didnt think there would be anyone stupid enough to read it the way you did, but I guess I was wrong and I should have made it clearer.

It is my OPINION (So therefore how could it be "FALSE," as you claim?) that the police (and no-one else) are NOT fit to judge whether or not a person DESERVES to be physically assaulted as some form of wild west punishment, which is what people in this thread are insinuating by making remarks such as "THE KID WAS BEING A LOUD DOUCHE THINKIN HIS SHIT DONT STINK HE DESERVED TO BE ZAPPED."

My point is that it isn't in their job description to hand out punishment, whether or not the kid was being a dick and deserved it - Their job is to apprehend suspects for the greater intention of upholding the law, a COURT OF LAW determines punishment.

You people are so stuck up in your beliefs that you think its a totally black and white issue. COPS WERE RIGHT DUDE WAS ANNOYING. It's not that simple, if it were, this wouldn't have been the media shitstorm it is - Would it?

Originally Posted by TGB

Specious reasoning. Whether he is a beligerent nerd or a coked out bouncer, they have a procedure for handling the situation, and constantly saying "Oh they could have handled him" tosses all that out to make the point. They TRIED to handle him (dunno why this isn't getting through).

SIX COPS - ONE SUSPECT. Seriously. This doesnt seem odd to you that they couldnt get cuffs on him?

Tasers are a relatively new piece of equipment in law enforcement - What do you think police would have done before? Not be able to apprehend the suspect? Or would they have just shot him?

Seriously, just humour me. What would they have done? What are they doing whenever they have to take suspects 'down-town?'

Are they just zapping everyone now the minute they show any kind of resistance? Thats kind of fucked up.
Im very glad our government decided not to put tasers into police hands, because this is exactly what they assumed would happen. Cops would get way too comfortable using them, and would just zap people when they dont need to, just because the suspect wouldn't die afterwards.

[quote:e6d11]Whatever. You're ignoring events in the video, and eyewitness accounts that happened during AND after to make your point, as well as giving these cops leeway and mysterious RoboCop powers in their ability to FLAWLESSLY control the situation.[/quote:e6d11]

So 6 cops need mysterious robocop powers to take down ONE suspect without their tasers? What are you saying...?

[quote:e6d11]You refer to some Amnesty Intl. report (if its the same one that is bandied about), that is sloppy in its reporting. 150 deaths over how many years versus how many people who hadn't died when the TASER was used in the process of restraining them. Also nevermind that there is no IMPLICIT link between the taser being the cause of death just that "well these folks who died also had been shot". Only in SEVEN of these 150 cases, did a medical official actually list the taser as being the cause of death.[/quote:e6d11]

Debateable.

[quote:e6d11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon_controversy[/quote:e6d11]

What this all comes down to is the Taser. Its pretty obvious police are quick to use it. In my opinion this is a bad thing, because you cant deny there is deadly risk involved with using it.

[quote:e6d11]He wasn't electrocuted. He was tasered. I'm sure you know the difference. [/quote:e6d11]

Come on, don't be pathetic. Its known as an ELECTROSHOCK WEAPON.

What, are you gonna try and argue that it doesn't use an electric shock to stun the victim?

Anything to one-up someone, right TGB?