[RaNgeR]

Originally Posted by ninty

well said ranger, i agree.

thank you <3

[Tripper]

Originally Posted by RaNgeR

thank you <3

I agree too. Human beings have rights. While the guy was being a total douche by being disruptive and just plain annoying, he didnt deserve a tazering.

Look at how many cops are there. Even if one cop cant handle removing a non-violent suspect without use of this kind of extreme force, then they shouldnt be a fucking cop. When there is a group of them in the video it makes it even more ridiculous.

They should be able to do a job like that without a tazer or a gun. Plenty of cops do there jobs without even having these weapons in a bunch of places around the world and they get the job done fine. Removing one loud douche shouldnt be a problem.

Seriously, I dont understand how anyone can think these cops handled this situation properly. It was borderline police brutality, whether or not the suspect deserved it is irrelevant - cops are not fit to make these judgements, if he had committed a crime then they should have apprehended him formally. If not, then why does he need to be assaulted? They walked all over his human rights.

[m00nraker]

He wasn't complying with any of the officer's requests. He was resisting and flailing around all over the place.

I'm willing to bet the cops weren't going to do anything to him besides escort him outside and tell him to cut the shit - he hadn't broken any laws yet anyway.

Its one thing if a cop beats the shit out of a guy with a baton for no reason. But this little shit was trying to act all big and loud thinking his shit doesn't stink and absolutely refusing to cooperate.

The cops weren't fit to make what judgment? To taser him? ...last time i checked that was absolutely part of the officers right as a police officer. To determine the level of necessary force to detain someone, doing as minimal harm as possible to all parties involved. Its called discretion. How the hell were these officers supposed to apprehend him 'formally'? Send him a polite letter in the mail on some nice fancy paper?

Could this have been solved without the use of the taser? Its possible.
But the officer had every right to do what he did.

[Proteus]

/\ Neah, he didn't.

[TGB!]

[quote:81cd1]They could have easily escorted him out.[/quote:81cd1]

You didn't see the part where they tried to do that, for nearly two minutes while he continued to make a spectacle and resist their efforts to remove him?

I would put forth that giving him a lil juice is MUCH preferable to accidentally breaking his arm.

Again, the shot COULDNT have been as powerful as his scream let us on to believe as he was up and joking (once the cameras were off) relatively quickly.

{quote]Even if one cop cant handle removing a non-violent suspect without use of this kind of extreme force, then they shouldnt be a fucking cop.[/quote]

I think its about one cop not being able to handle the situation WITHOUT using physical force. Look at the big dicked nigga that comes up behind the kid. You don't think that guy COULDNT have ended this in a minute? Of course he could have. There were however cameras on these cops, and I'm sure they remember what happened in UCLA and this shitstorm that followed. This was going to be done as kid glove as possible. When he STILL refused to cooperate (at what point does someone resisting arrest become actionable to some of you), they give him an electro-kiss to get him to straighten out and OBEY COMMANDS.

Some of you I don't get - at what point when someone is causing a public disturbance, do you say "Ok, it's time to go to Plan B"?

[Proteus]

[quote:4dbef]Some of you I don't get - at what point when someone is causing a public disturbance, do you say "Ok, it's time to go to Plan B"?
[/quote:4dbef]

I'd say right after you've even attempted plan A of physically removing the person. He was some nerd arguing with John Kerry, not a linebacker. They easily could have just grabbed him and manhandled him right out the door.

[Tripper]

[quote="TGB!":8f485][quote:8f485]They could have easily escorted him out.[/quote:8f485]

You didn't see the part where they tried to do that, for nearly two minutes while he continued to make a spectacle and resist their efforts to remove him?I did, and I wondered why the fuck that many cops couldnt take a man down and remove him in a matter of seconds. The dude is a tiny nerd. This is their job. They get paid money and have training to deal with far more dangerous and deadly people. They shouldn't immediately move to excessive force. (and using a TASER in this situation IS excessive) Are we to assume these cops are totally useless without their Tasers? Even in a group of as many cops as there were? For fucks sake.
Totally unecessary.

I would put forth that giving him a lil juice is MUCH preferable to accidentally breaking his arm.
..But accidentally breaking his arm is only a possibility, just like him potentially having some kind of health condition that could lead the taser to accidentally kill him. The tasers aren't full-proof, and they most certainly aren't guaranteed non-fatal. People occasionally die from being assaulted with them. I know I'd rather MAYBE have my arm broken than MAYBE die.

Again, the shot COULDNT have been as powerful as his scream let us on to believe as he was up and joking (once the cameras were off) relatively quickly.
LOL. Okay.

[quote:8f485]Even if one cop cant handle removing a non-violent suspect without use of this kind of extreme force, then they shouldnt be a fucking cop.[/quote:8f485]

I think its about one cop not being able to handle the situation WITHOUT using physical force. Look at the big dicked n**** that comes up behind the kid. You don't think that guy COULDNT have ended this in a minute? Of course he could have. There were however cameras on these cops, and I'm sure they remember what happened in UCLA and this shitstorm that followed. This was going to be done as kid glove as possible. When he STILL refused to cooperate (at what point does someone resisting arrest become actionable to some of you), they give him an electro-kiss to get him to straighten out and OBEY COMMANDS.

Some of you I don't get - at what point when someone is causing a public disturbance, do you say "Ok, it's time to go to Plan B"?

I'm pretty sure you go to plan B when Plan A fails. Problem is, in a situation like this, Plan A SHOULDN'T fail. Like I said, if you cant remove a fucking college kid geek from a building without zapping him, and there are more than two of you, then you shouldn't be a police officer, because you're obviously not qualified for the job if you have to rely on your taser for a minor incident like this.

[/quote:8f485]

Have you ever been electrocuted? "electro-kiss?" Hardly.

In America alone, there have been over 150 deaths in which the use or abuse of the Taser by police and other law enforcement officials has been implicated.

Fact is, tasers are meant to be an alternative to guns because of the fact that they obviously are nowhere near as dangerous. Now would a gun be necessary in this situation? Of course not. So why use the taser?

What would they have done in this same situation before the taser was introduced? Its not the tiny little barely painful pinch you make it out to be.

[TGB!]

[quote:329d9]He was some nerd arguing with John Kerry, not a linebacker.[/quote:329d9]

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).

[quote:329d9]LOL. Okay. [/quote:329d9]

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. 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:329d9]Like I said, if you cant remove a fucking college kid geek from a building without zapping him, and there are more than two of you, then you shouldn't be a police officer[/quote:329d9]

Ever try to move someone who is resisting you? Go get one of your friends to play the part of the kid and you see how well (and without bruising or hurting him) you can remove him while hes resisting every movement. I love how you discount the campus police, when they gave the punk every chance to get the fuck out of the lecture hall. None of them "relied" on the taser - one person used it after REPEATEDLY asking the guy to cooperate with the campus police (and after tripping on his own shoes, and causing two of the cops to fall on the steps with him).

[quote:329d9]
Have you ever been electrocuted? "electro-kiss?" Hardly. [/quote:329d9]

He wasn't electrocuted. He was tasered. I'm sure you know the difference.

[quote:329d9]Now would a gun be necessary in this situation? Of course not. So why use the taser?[/quote:329d9]

That's not a tasers sole use.

But this is a joke of a debate, since we seem to be arguing from a poin to of "What a cop SHOULD be able to do" versus what they are trained and ordered to do per dept. policy.

[jujumantb]

Originally Posted by Tripper

whether or not the suspect deserved it is irrelevant - cops are not fit to make these judgements,

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.

[TGB!]

And just for shits and giggles:

[quote:2fa1b]Police report student told them: 'You didn't do anything wrong'
5:52 p.m., Sept. 18, 2007

Police have released the incident report detailing the Tasering of a University of Florida student during a campus forum with Sen. John Kerry Monday, and the officer who actually Tasered Andrew Meyer wrote in the report that Meyer later told police, "You didn't do anything wrong."

In the 12-page report, which gives accounts of the incident from the perspective of eight different officers who were present Monday afternoon, Officer Nicole Mallo writes that Meyer would only resist officers when cameras were present.

"As (Meyer) was escorted down stairs (at the University Auditorium) with no cameras in sight, he remained quiet, but once the cameras made their way down stairs he started screaming and yelling again," Mallo wrote.

Mallo was one of two officers who actually rode in the vehicle as Meyer was escorted to the Alachua County jail, and she said said he told them during the ride: "I am not mad at you guys, you didn't do anything wrong, you were just trying to do your job," according to Mallo's account.

Mallo also wrote in her report that he asked, at one point, if cameras would be present at the jail.

The report details the events leading up to Meyer's arrest, saying that Meyer was in line to ask a question of Sen. Kerry when it was decided that no more questions would be allowed.

Meyer continued down the aisle toward Sen. Kerry angrily, according to police, saying he wanted the senator to answer his question because he had been waiting for two hours.

Though Sen. Kerry directed that Meyer be allowed to ask his question, police reported that Meyer did not ask any specific question and instead "badgered" the senator, and at one point said something about President Clinton being impeached over a sexual act.

At that point, police reported that ACCENT Director Max Tyroler turned off Meyer's microphone and asked police to escort him out of the auditorium, saying, "He had said enough," according to Officer Mallo's report.

Officers then proceeded to attempt to remove Meyer from the room, but when he resisted, they placed him on the ground and tried to handcuff him. The six officers who actually took part in holding Meyer down while he was being handcuffed reported that they were only able to get a handcuff on his right hand because he was squirming so much.

The supervising officer, Sgt. Eddie King, attempted to Taser Meyer on his chest, but he reported that his Taser would not deploy. He then instructed Mallo to Taser Meyer, and she Tasered him on his shoulder, according to one of the officer's report.

The officers were then able to fully handcuff Meyer and escort him from the building. Each of the six officers reported that Meyer yelled things like, "They're going to kill me," and, "They are giving me to the government," while he was being taken from the room.

-- Alice Wallace/The Gainesville Sun [/quote:2fa1b]

http://www.starbanner.com/article/20070 ... AKING_NEWS

[c312]

If the cops hadn't used a taser and had to use force to get this kid out, it would have probably caused him more harm than the taser did and they would have gotten into even more trouble.

Why should a cop have to sit there and fight a guy into submission anyway? I'm all for making it easier for them to do their jobs, especially with how little they get paid. I would have said, "fuck this man, I don't wanna get hit with a flailing leg while I try to wrestle this guy" and tasered him. THat is the safest and quickest way for the police to do what they needed to do.


The funniest part to me was that the guy thought they were going to take him away and kill him. "My friends now I'm here!" LOL

[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?

[c312]

Originally Posted by Tripper

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.

But there is a point where their job of apprehension can require force, hell, no one wants to go to jail, that's why the cops have to use force. Tasers are not a form of punishment, and neither are guns, they are just necessary tools for policemen to do their jobs.

[TGB!]

[quote:86a39]
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. [/quote:86a39]

Subduing an invidual isn't punishment. People arguing that he "deserves" it, aren't speaking from the POV of the campus police.

[quote:86a39]SIX COPS - ONE SUSPECT. Seriously. This doesnt seem odd to you that they couldnt get cuffs on him? [/quote:86a39]

Nope. Again, go try and subdue a friend, and tell him to resist EVERY effort you make to do so. Also, there weren't six cops on him the entire time. There were two on him, with others in the periphery. And again, it's not their job to say "ok boys give it all you got" - thats WHY they have tasers, to create a situation that is less likely to harm the officers AND the suspect.

[quote:86a39]What do you think police would have done before? Not be able to apprehend the suspect? Or would they have just shot him?[/quote:86a39]

The black individual that came from behind would have probably put him in a choke hold, or worse. A taser offers the path of least resistance on the part of the individual and the police officers. Had they done what they could have easily done, others would be complaining the they used too much physical force to take down "one skinny lil boy".

[quote:86a39]Cops would get way too comfortable using them[/quote:86a39]

Well aren't you just the center of enlightenment. Yea, they sure are trigger happy, considering the number of warnings he was given to relax and leave quietly. Oh most definitely, they just couldnt wait to get off a couple of shots to satisfy some male ego. Too bad the kid had NO CHOICE but to resist, its not as if not resisting wouldn't have gotten him tasered since OBVIOUSLY they were gonna taze him regardless.

[quote:86a39]Debateable. [/quote:86a39]

Its on the website. That's not debateable. Unless 143 medical examinations have been sealed, 7 out of the 150 are a direct result of the tasering action.

[quote:86a39]
Anything to one-up someone, right TGB?[/quote:86a39]

Oh yea - thats EXACTLY it. Gimme a fucking break. If you HONESTLY think there is NO DIFFERENCE between being electrocuted, and being given a jolt of electricity to incapacitate your motor functions, then you really have zero scale here and to you being hit with a joy-buzzer is the same and grounds for marching on Washington.

In summation. The kid caused an actionable disruption. He was asked to leave. He resisted. He was further asked to leave. He resisted. He tripped on himself causing two officers to fall under and on top of him. He continued to resist. He was warned three times after 3 minutes of resisting that if he didn't stop resisting the officers attempts to put handcuffs on him, he would be zapped. He resisted. He was zapped. Screamed like a little bitch. He then GETS UP (seconds after the excrutiatingly painful zap is administered), and walks with the officers out of the lecture hall, joking with them the entire way while there is no media present (sounds like a hell of a zap he received), and then proceeds to turn it all on again when there are.

So - no. The use of a taser wasn't unwarranted REGARDLESS of how many officers are present, since their job is to subdue the suspect using methods that pose the LEAST amount of risk to the officers, to the suspect and to the public around. Putting the shit in a choke hold or bar-locking his arms doesn't offer the same protection from "police brutality" as using a taser to stun the punk does.

[jujumantb]

Originally Posted by Tripper

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."

maybe you arent very clear on the english language, but "deserve" does not necessarily imply a moral judgement.

Originally Posted by Tripper

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.

i never mentioned "punishment", what they did was not punishment, it was a tool to allow them to get the guy to stop squirming so they could cuff him.

Originally Posted by Tripper

You people are so stuck up in your beliefs that you think its a totally black and white issue.

Originally Posted by jujumantb

but nothing in the field is black and white

oOo: hmmm