Help, Help, I'm being repressed!

[MikeD]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hfZBulx_H-prruRU2Clj0dIgUOww

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A University of Florida student was Tasered and arrested after trying to ask U.S. Senator John Kerry about the 2004 election and other subjects during a campus forum.

Videos of the incident posted on several Web sites show officers pulling Andrew Meyer, 21, away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.

"He apparently asked several questions — he went on for quite awhile — then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."

As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles to escape for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.

Meyer screams for help and asks "What did I do?" as he tries to break away from officers. He is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting. Meyer says he will walk out if the officers let him go.

As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground and yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is Tasered. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"

Meyer was charged with resisting an officer and disturbing the peace, according to Alachua County jail records. No bond had been set. Meyer was scheduled to appear in court Tuesday morning, a jail official said.

It was not known if Meyer had an attorney.

Orlando said university police would conduct an internal investigation.

"The police department does have a standard procedure for when they use force, including when they use a Taser," Orlando said. "That is what the internal investigation would address — whether the proper procedures were followed, whether the officers acted appropriately."
---------------------

I'm sure it's on YouTube or something. (Ed: http://youtube.com/watch?v=iqAVvlyVbag , but I haven't watched this version, just saw one on the morning news which gave a pretty inconclusive view)

Well, IF the police decided to interfere with the event and remove the guy before University security asked the guy to sit down or leave, they're in the wrong...police have no authority to interfere with someone's first amendment right, especially on a private venue. However, the first amendment doesn't apply to private conduct, so if the venue/event staff or security asked him to stop speaking or sit down and he didn't, they can request that the police remove him.

Whether tasering was appropriate or not...well, tasering is used to overcome active resistance, so regardless of what he's yelling, if he's struggling against the police, they can taser him. But I think that's the minor part of the story...I want to know the full fact pattern that led to the police acting.

Either way, minor deal as far as I'm concerned, but I thought the PaWN would like another bacon fight.

MD

[narlus]

imagine if you tried to ask a question of Dick Cheney.

[ulockjustice]

w00t w00t UFPD. im kind of torn on this one. from watching the video is obvious the dude is being a total jackass, and pretty much had it coming, but it seems like they couldve just escorted him outside at least. not entirely sure the use of the tazer was needed, but he was being a total prick.

i wasnt at the event, but from talking to people who were there, he apparently was being disruptive during the event, then as time was out for questioning etc at the end of the event, he pushed his way to the front of the line for the mic, and proceeded to ask several long rambling questions. the cops were already on him at this point for being a douche previously and disrupting the event. They finally cut off his mic since time was up before he even started talking, but Kerry said hed answer one more question.

[FrontRangeDH]

Yeah, how can 6 rent a cops not control one student? its clear they have him pinned down, it seems they tazer him for no apparent reason. Granted he was being a punk, they removed his freedom of speech and basically removed him from the building for it, he resisted and they arrested him, but the tazering was a little overboard. Gotta love cops on a power trip. At least he has a bunch of witnesses and a video to help him with a law suit for excessive force.

[Spero]

Obviously the cops were undercover secret service trying to keep the 2004 election fraud under wraps.

[MikeD]

Huh. I frankly have no idea what the constitutional standard is for university police at a public school. Normally the lines between private and government conduct are pretty clear, but this is interesting. I'm sure there's plenty of precedent, seeing as colleges must face these issues all the time, but I dunno what they are. Maybe Manimal knows...?

[OrthoPT]

w00t w00t UFPD. im kind of torn on this one. from watching the video is obvious the dude is being a total jackass, and pretty much had it coming, but it seems like they couldve just escorted him outside at least. not entirely sure the use of the tazer was needed, but he was being a total prick.

i wasnt at the event, but from talking to people who were there, he apparently was being disruptive during the event, then as time was out for questioning etc at the end of the event, he pushed his way to the front of the line for the mic, and proceeded to ask several long rambling questions. the cops were already on him at this point for being a douche previously and disrupting the event. They finally cut off his mic since time was up before he even started talking, but Kerry said hed answer one more question.
:stupid:

[Spero]

Huh. I frankly have no idea what the constitutional standard is for university police at a public school. Normally the lines between private and government conduct are pretty clear, but this is interesting. I'm sure there's plenty of precedent, seeing as colleges must face these issues all the time, but I dunno what they are. Maybe Manimal knows...?

From reading a bit on other school system police forces (Cali, Indiana and Arizona), they seem to be held to the same standards as normal police as far as job pre-requisites and conduct. I can't find much on the 'chain of command' or who they answer to directly.

[MikeD]

From reading a bit on other school system police forces (Cali, Indiana and Arizona), they seem to be held to the same standards as normal police as far as job pre-requisites and conduct. I can't find much on the 'chain of command' or who they answer to directly.

That's not it...it's not conduct, it's whether they represent the government or a private entity vis a vis the Bill of Rights. A private entity can restrict you any way it wants within its sphere, where the government can't restrict any of your rights without due process.

[ulockjustice]

also, depending which video you watch (the cnn one was edited pretty heavily) pretty much everyone in the auditorium starts clapping when the police start to escort him out, which should be a good indicator of what a jack@ss he was being during the event. he still prob shouldnt have been tazered, but its tough to tell whats going on when hes pinned down by the 5-0.

[Spero]

That's not it...it's not conduct, it's whether they represent the government or a private entity vis a vis the Bill of Rights. A private entity can restrict you any way it wants within its sphere, where the government can't restrict any of your rights without due process.

Well, if a state or city government sets a code of conduct for a job and pays the salary on said job, wouldn't that mean they answer to that entity?

[MikeD]

Well, if a state or city government sets a code of conduct for a job and pays the salary on said job, wouldn't that mean they answer to that entity?

Wow, hadn't considered that...

I was looking for examples of legal precedent where public servants, in this case university police, have to draw the dividing line between someone's rights and any public disturbance they're causing. There has to be one, otherwise a public school simply couldn't reasonably control its own environment.

I guess it's not really any different than what normal police do every day...it's just that my knowledge is about the Federal government, not what state/local officials are empowered by statute to do, and the Feds don't deal with stuff like this, even the Secret Service and the like. They let venue security and locals deal with it unless there's an actual threat to their protected party. But everyone still has to act within Constitutional bounds.

[RenegadeRick]

Here is a little better YouTube of the event.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

You can see that as the cops are grabbing him, Kerry says, "It's all right. Let me answer his question." You can also see his clear resistance.

My question is why are they grabbing him in the first place? All he did was ask a few questions, and Kerry was agreeing to answer them. The kid may have been an ass, but he did nothing violent or aggressive until the police put their hands on HIM.

[Spero]

Wow, hadn't considered that...

I was looking for examples of legal precedent where public servants, in this case university police, have to draw the dividing line between someone's rights and any public disturbance they're causing. There has to be one, otherwise a public school simply couldn't reasonably control its own environment.

I guess it's not really any different than what normal police do every day...it's just that my knowledge is about the Federal government, not what state/local officials are empowered by statute to do, and the Feds don't deal with stuff like this, even the Secret Service and the like. They let venue security and locals deal with it unless there's an actual threat to their protected party. But everyone still has to act within Constitutional bounds.

I guess I didn't fully understand you were looking for established legal cases. As far as state and local officials are concerned, and I'm sure you know this already, laws vary so much from state to state and even more so on down to the city level statutes that little besides our basic rights pass on from the federal gov't...or so I think.

[ire]

I was looking for examples of legal precedent where public servants, in this case university police, have to draw the dividing line between someone's rights and any public disturbance they're causing.


Isn't the issue not so much the persons rights as the level of force used?

[Spero]

Isn't the issue not so much the persons rights as the level of force used?

I think he's trying to establish whether or not the cops even had the right to pull him off the stage in the first place.

[ire]

I think he's trying to establish whether or not the cops even had the right to pull him off the stage in the first place.

aaahhh, I'll have to watch the video when I get home (damn firewall).

[Silver]

The guy is obviously an asshole.

Now, having said that, it appears that they didn't want to arrest him, but instead just tried to pick him up and carry him out. Why didn't they just arrest him? My guess is that they knew they didn't have any cause to.

And the tasering seemed out of line to me. The cops clearly had physical control of the situation, they had guys sitting on his legs, and he's not flailing his arms around...looks to me like they used the taser because he wouldn't shut up. The kid's going to be rich.

[manimal]

Isn't the issue not so much the persons rights as the level of force used?

a tazer is not very high up on the use of force model. it is less damaging than pepper spray but much more effective. it leaves no lasting physical damage (unlike pepper spray that makes my allergies go nuts for several days).
i don't understand why people freak out when someone is tazered. have you ever tried to just "carry out" someone who is actively resisting? it isn't as easy at it looks and often ends in injury to the officer. why risk the injury when you can gain compliance through a tool that doesn't injure the subject you are trying to control.

i really, really wish that all branches of law enforcement would go on strike for one week so that the general public would have a better understanding of why we have to do what we do.

mike - campus police here in NC are certified by the state just as any other LEO. it's just that their jurisdiction is that campus. it's no different than what i do...i have jurisdiction in the city that pays me but i can only have enforcement powers in another jurisdiction if the chief/sheriff make a request.

[MikeD]

mike - campus police here in NC are certified by the state just as any other LEO. it's just that their jurisdiction is that campus. it's no different than what i do...i have jurisdiction in the city that pays me but i can only have enforcement powers in another jurisdiction if the chief/sheriff make a request.

Yeah, but my question is when such police can take action, constitutionally, in a venue. Feds can't unless the venue staff or security request it and 1) there's a threat to public safety or 2) the Feds are present in a protective role and the disturbance threatens the protectee with harm (unlikely in this scenario) or embarassment (quite likely). Feds usually let private security and/or local police handle the situation unless it gets dangerous.

I'm just wondering how that plays out with college environments/cops, since they are hovering on a line where the may be considered to be violating an individual's right to free speech by removing him from a venue. Private guards don't have any concerns like this, but cops do, since they're bound by the Constitution. (Which, again, doesn't apply to private conduct.)

There's obviously a line and rules that govern this; I'm just not familiar with them.

(btw, Get with me off-line if you want more info on the stuff we emailed about earlier...I think I left you hanging...)

[RenegadeRick]

a tazer is not very high up on the use of force model. it is less damaging than pepper spray but much more effective. it leaves no lasting physical damage (unlike pepper spray that makes my allergies go nuts for several days).
i don't understand why people freak out when someone is tazered.

Because people can die. :clue:

[MikeD]

Because people can die. :clue:

They can die from lots of other non/less-lethal uses-of-force as well, through accident or bad luck. When you get knocked to the ground by a baton or a fist, you can hit your head and die from it, just as if you hit your head and died from being dropped with a taser. You can have an allegric reaction to pepper spray. You can try and duck a police baton and get hit in the temple. **** happens.

Don't want to chance that? Be physically compliant with police orders. This guy WAS NOT compliant...I think it's obvious by the fact that 5 of them were holding him down and he was still struggling against them. He yelled about how badly he was being treated and how they didn't need to treat him that way, but he didn't follow instructions or walk willingly out when ordered to. If he had, a cop might have just held his elbow as he walked (and possibly yelled whatever he wanted to, so long as he was physically going along), rather than him being dragged, then dog-piled.

[manimal]

Because people can die. :clue:

yes, people can die. but it's much safer than the alternative, ie; getting beat down with a baton.

i'll tell you what, i'll send an irate college kid your way and you have to subdue him in the quickest, safest way possible. i'll film the whole thing and critique everything you do. at about the 6 minute mark, when you're out of breath and scared to death, i'll throw you a taser and see if you feel like ending the struggle with a quick jolt, the effects of which will fade long before you catch your breath after finishing your job.

i love how everyone can armchair quarterback use of force incidents but if faced with having to do the job would probably crap their pants. "i would have just shot him in the leg" "i would have tackled him" "that cop should mind his own business"
well, you can't have your cake.........
there have to be consequences to testing the law. there is no point in having law ENFORCEMENT if there is not bite to the bark.

[blue]

I don't know if they did or not, but it seems like in a lot of these excessive force cases the problem could've been rectified by the police explaining what the offending party was doing wrong and why they needed to leave...It's obvious dude was a jackass, but to be hauled out and subsequently tased/arrested for being one is unacceptable. It seems that with the advent of the "safe" taser, the police motto has become "Shock 'em first, ask questions later".

What should be said is not "A taser is less dangerous than a spray/baton/etc", but "Why was it necessary to use violent force to begin with?"

[ohio]

"i would have just shot him in the leg" "i would have tackled him" "that cop should mind his own business"

This is nothing that a deft tickle with a feather duster couldn't have sorted out.

[RenegadeRick]

...but "Why was it necessary to use violent force to begin with?"

Amen!

Then again, I can understand the police position on this one. After all, he was carrying a book. Books can lead to reading and reading can lead to thinking.

We can't have thinking in America™. That could lead to opposition to the war. :twitch:

[MikeD]

The video doesn't show anything that led up to the event. Plus, do you really think the guy didn't understand what the police wanted him to do?

The police didn't do anything particularly violent until the subject started resisting them...even then, they didn't even strike him.

I'd challenge many of you who want to apply the "talk it out" solution to situations outside the Internet. I do that all the time...I'm sure most of Manimal's contacts with the public are also resolved without a hand being laid...and you know what? No one films that, or at least bothers to post it to YouTube. They only post things that people will want to yap about afterward.

[OrthoPT]

The video doesn't show anything that lead up to the event. Plus, do you really think the guy didn't understand what the police wanted him to do?

The police didn't do anything particularly violent until the subject started resisting them...even then, they didn't even strike him.

I'd challenge many of you who want to apply the "talk it out" solution to situations outside the Internet. I do that all the time...I'm sure most of Manimal's contacts with the public are also resolved without a hand being laid...and you know what? No one films that, or at least bothers to post it to YouTube. They only post things that people will want to yap about afterward.
AMEN.

[N8]

another dumbass get tazered... bfd.

[MikeD]

Well, my final verdict...since Kerry wanted to answer, they should have just let Kerry manage the answer/situation unless it got further out of hand, thus and averting this whole mess. It was really Kerry's call, and unless there's a physical threat to him or the public, security should pay attention to his desires in any social situation.

However, the police's actions were presumably still legal because the guy was causing a disturbance, in legal terms, by the time they laid hands on him, after warning him. And every locality has rules on the book enabling police to take control of disturbances. Everything that the police did thereafter was 100% right, as well. No matter what the guy was yelling, he wasn't complying with the police, who used restraint.

So it was dumb, but legal, in my opinion.

[N8]

Well, my final verdict...since Kerry wanted to answer, they should have just let Kerry manage the answer/situation unless it got further out of hand, thus and averting this whole mess. It was really Kerry's call, and unless there's a physical threat to him or the public, security should pay attention to his desires in any social situation.

However, the police's actions were presumably still legal because the guy was causing a disturbance, in legal terms, by the time they laid hands on him, after warning him. And every locality has rules on the book enabling police to take control of disturbances. Everything that the police did thereafter was 100% right, as well. No matter what the guy was yelling, he wasn't complying with the police, who used restraint.

So it was dumb, but legal, in my opinion.

the worse that happens is the dumbass gets 15 min of fame on youtube

[BMXman]

oh great another tazer issue that will get blown out of proportion...it's really so simple resist and pay the price...it's not exactly rocket science!...D

Edit: Once again Manimal telling it like it is!!!

[valve bouncer]

I'm glad "being an annoying prick" wasn't reason enough to get tasered when I was young or I'd be nicknamed Sparky know

[bohorec]

I'm sure Taser-happy police officers use the weapon on everyone from disturbed children to old men and women who don’t follow orders fast enough just because they want to share joy of Taser they have discovered during training:

http://www.rescuehumor.com/video/TASER_to_Balls.htm

[valve bouncer]

I'm sure Taser-happy police officers use the weapon on everyone from disturbed children to old men and women who don’t follow orders fast enough just because they want to share joy of Taser they have discovered during training:

http://www.rescuehumor.com/video/TASER_to_Balls.htm

Awesome, helluva good shot to be able to hit a cop in the balls.:twitch: :poster_oops: ;)

[RenegadeRick]

Well, my final verdict...since Kerry wanted to answer, they should have just let Kerry manage the answer/situation unless it got further out of hand, thus and averting this whole mess. It was really Kerry's call, and unless there's a physical threat to him or the public, security should pay attention to his desires in any social situation.

However, the police's actions were presumably still legal because the guy was causing a disturbance, in legal terms, by the time they laid hands on him, after warning him. And every locality has rules on the book enabling police to take control of disturbances. Everything that the police did thereafter was 100% right, as well. No matter what the guy was yelling, he wasn't complying with the police, who used restraint.

So it was dumb, but legal, in my opinion.

You are a wise man. While I question the need for for police involvement in the first place... they were involved, and he did resist. Case closed.

The thing that continues to feel wrong here is that he was on the ground, held down by 5 or 6 officers when he got the taser. He still may not have been compliant, but was he a threat? I should think you need to be a threat to have a http://www.renegadesrendezvous.com/rendezvous/Smileys/default/taser.gif (WEAPON) used against you.

EDIT: I know, I know, just beating a defenseless college student (http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q116/jimmydean69/deadhorse3.gif) again.

[MikeD]

He still may not have been compliant, but was he a threat? I should think you need to be a threat to have a http://www.renegadesrendezvous.com/rendezvous/Smileys/default/taser.gif (WEAPON) used against you.


It's a completely approriate use of force, and in fact, a lot nicer than what I'd have done to the guy, since I don't have a taser. What I would have done would have involved pressure points or joint locks that cause excruciating pain and possibly more lasting bodily injury...the fact that it was caused by a device really isn't a factor legally or even morally. Again, if you're going to attack me with your hands, I'm going to smack you with my baton. I'm expected to win any fight I'm in, not to give you some kind of fair fight.

The fact that he was indeed held to the ground by multiple officers, and was STILL fighting/resisting them, in fact makes the case for the taser. (That said, I'd still have just jacked his wrist or his jaw until he put his hand behind his back, but I'm an ape, pre-monolith...)

The officers couldn't tase him if he had just gone limp and was passively resisting, however, under most use-of-force models.

This kind of situation is something I encounter in my job, so it's something I'm used to dealing with theoretically and practically.

[manimal]

It's a completely approriate use of force, and in fact, a lot nicer than what I'd have done to the guy, since I don't have a taser. What I would have done would have involved pressure points or joint locks that cause excruciating pain and possibly more lasting bodily injury...the fact that it was caused by a device really isn't a factor legally or even morally. Again, if you're going to attack me with your hands, I'm going to smack you with my baton. I'm expected to win any fight I'm in, not to give you some kind of fair fight.

The fact that he was indeed held to the ground by multiple officers, and was STILL fighting/resisting them, in fact makes the case for the taser. (That said, I'd still have just jacked his wrist or his jaw until he put his hand behind his back, but I'm an ape, pre-monolith...)

The officers couldn't tase him if he had just gone limp and was passively resisting, however, under most use-of-force models.

This kind of situation is something I encounter in my job, so it's something I'm used to dealing with theoretically and practically.

Well said. we don't carry tasers either but we're hoping too soon. the proper use of a taser can end potentially lethal situations without even a trip to the ER and they are more effective on more people than oc spray and batons.
i'm also an ape and i have never used my oc spray or baton in a use of force (and i get into a lot of fights in public housing). i prefer to use what i know and trust; my hands.
mike is 100% correct, as law enforcement officers, we are not expected to fight fair, society expects us to WIN the fight and that's why they give us the tools. i am supposed to be one level higher than what the bad guy comes at me with. if he uses his fists, i use a baton/spray/taser, if he uses a knife or other weapon, i step it up to my sidearm. as i've said before, there HAS to be a serious consequence for challenging the law with violence/resistance. that kid got off easy IMO.

[I Are Baboon]

The video is surprising. Usually good things happen when you resist cops and try to break away from them.

He should have yelled, "I'M JOSE CANSECO!!!" as he was being dragged out.

[valve bouncer]

Well said. we don't carry tasers either but we're hoping too soon. the proper use of a taser can end potentially lethal situations
Mate, you and your brother could make a fortune out of this. You taser them in the face and when their eyeball explodes you tell them "hey, I know a guy who could fix that for you" and give them your brother's card. License to print money if you ask me.:pirate2:

[Secret Squirrel]

:pirate2: , indeed...



It *is* International Talk Like a Pirate Day...

[manimal]

Mate, you and your brother could make a fortune out of this. You taser them in the face and when their eyeball explodes you tell them "hey, I know a guy who could fix that for you" and give them your brother's card. License to print money if you ask me.:pirate2:

holy crap that's a really good idea!!! too bad he's in FL and i'm in NC...hmmm, i'll have to work on that one. do i owe you a intellectual property tax for the idea?

[sanjuro]

Alternative viewing:

John Kerry: Any questions?
Student: babble babble fcking with you babble
Moderator: Times up
Student: babble babble fcking with you babble
Police: Time for you to go, please
Student: babble babble fcking with you babble
Police: Will you please leave with us?
Student: babble babble fcking with you babble
Police: ZAP!
Student: I SAID I WOULD LEAVE!!!!!

Also applies to UCLA.

Every time the police has asked me to leave a location, I did so and funny enough, I have never been tasered.

[OrthoPT]

Every time the police has asked me to leave a location, I did so and funny enough, I have never been tasered.
That's really weird. I wonder why that is.

[sanjuro]

Because I am a minority and the police know I will sue.

[OrthoPT]

I was thinking it's weird because they would probably expect you to use your karate skills on them. (jk!)

[RenegadeRick]

How about this taser use? Also justified?
It sounds like she was resisting to me...


Wheelchair-Bound Woman Dies After Being Shocked With Taser 10 Times (http://news.yahoo.com/s/wkmg/20070919/lo_wkmg/14147512)
A Clay County woman's family said it's seeking justice after their loved one died shortly after being shocked 10 times with Taser guns during a confrontation with police.
...
Officers said they arrived to find Delafield in a wheelchair, armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police.

Within an hour of her call to 911, Delafield, a wheelchair-bound woman documented to have mental illness, was dead.

Family attorney Rick Alexander said Delafield's death could have been prevented and that there are four things that jump out at him about the case.

"One, she's in a wheelchair. Two, she's schizophrenic. Three, they're using a Taser on a person that's in a wheelchair, and then four is that they tasered her 10 times for a period of like two minutes," Alexander said.

According to a police report, one of the officers used her Taser gun nine times for a total of 160 seconds and the other officer discharged his Taser gun once for a total of no more than five seconds.

A medical examiner found Delafield died from hypertensive heart disease and cited the Taser gun shock as a contributing factor, the report said. On her death certificate, the medical examiner ruled Delafield's death a homicide.

[Westy]

How about this taser use? Also justified?
It sounds like she was resisting to me...

armed with two knives and a hammer. Police said the woman was swinging the weapons at family members and police.



Not resisting, attacking.

[Spero]

^^ the force was obviously excessive, but the use of it in the first place was justified in my opinion.

[MikeD]

^^ the force was obviously excessive, but the use of it in the first place was justified in my opinion.

There's nothing in that news report that can tell you whether or not the force used was excessive.

[Spero]

There's nothing in that news report that can tell you whether or not the force used was excessive.

I'm no expert, but 9 shots for a total of 160 seconds doesn't seem excessive? For those with taser experience, wouldn't there be a time frame in between shots for subduing a wheelchair bound woman to avoid having to shock her for almost 3 minutes?

[MikeD]

I'm no expert, but 9 shots for a total of 160 seconds doesn't seem excessive? For those with taser experience, wouldn't there be a time frame in between shots for subduing a wheelchair bound woman to avoid having to shock her for almost 3 minutes?

If 9 shots didn't gain compliance, 10 shots might be the way to go, no? You know nothing of the fact pattern surrounding the use of the taser in this situation, and the particular details that make your baseless, universal conclusions less than useless-- in fact, harmful-- to our understanding of the situation.

If someone's armed with a knife and presents a threat to another person, a cop can shoot him in the face, so it's quite possible that the use of the taser, even 10 times, was a very restrained use of force. It's also possible it was flagrantly abusive. We just don't know a ****ing thing other than what a defense attorney is telling the news.

The fact that she's in a wheelchair presents a modifier as to whether or not she presented a real threat, but none of us know a thing about the essential facts--who was where, with what, why, doing what?

The fact that she's schizophrenic only goes to show that she was more unpredictable and irrational than a sane person, and in fact doesn't garner her any sympathy points as far as use of force is concerned. People have to get past the idea that proper police use of force is somehow punishment, rather than a response to a factual situation.

[jonKranked]

didn't read all the thread cuz i'm at work. two words:

POLICE. STATE.

[Spero]

If 9 shots didn't gain compliance, 10 shots might be the way to go, no? You know nothing of the fact pattern surrounding the use of the taser in this situation, and the particular details that make your baseless, universal conclusions less than useless-- in fact, harmful-- to our understanding of the situation.

If someone's armed with a knife and presents a threat to another person, a cop can shoot him in the face, so it's quite possible that the use of the taser, even 10 times, was a very restrained use of force. It's also possible it was flagrantly abusive. We just don't know a ****ing thing other than what a defense attorney is telling the news.

The fact that she's in a wheelchair presents a modifier as to whether or not she presented a real threat, but none of us know a thing about the essential facts--who was where, with what, why, doing what?

The fact that she's schizophrenic only goes to show that she was more unpredictable and irrational than a sane person, and in fact doesn't garner her any sympathy points as far as use of force is concerned. People have to get past the idea that proper police use of force is somehow punishment, rather than a response to a factual situation.

If my comments have swayed anyone's understanding of the situation, please stand up.

My baseless, universal conclusions were open to correction considering I phrased them as questions in order to gain more insight into the 'fact pattern' surrounding the use of tasers.

[MikeD]

didn't read all the thread cuz i'm at work. two words:

POLICE. STATE.


Hah. As police use-of-force becomes more and more regulated by Constitutional standards, but more and more publicized, people complain more and more about it. Try this **** in, oh, 1859 or 1955. Or in some other country.

[MikeD]

If my comments have swayed anyone's understanding of the situation, please stand up.

My baseless, universal conclusions were open to correction considering I phrased them as questions in order to gain more insight into the 'fact pattern' surrounding the use of tasers.

You said the use of force was "clearly excessive." That's clearly baseless.

[Spero]

You said the use of force was "clearly excessive." That's clearly baseless.

Main Entry: ex·ces·sive
Pronunciation: ik-'se-siv
Function: adjective
: exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal

"A short blast of 1/4 second duration will startle an attacker, cause minor muscle contractions, and have a repelling effect. A moderate length blast of 1 to 4 seconds can cause an attacker to fall to the ground and result in some temporary mental confusion. It may make an assailant unwilling to continue an attack, but he will be able to get up almost immediately. A full charge of 5 seconds can immobilize an attacker, cause disorientation, loss of balance, and falling to the ground, and can leave them weak and dazed for some minutes afterward." http://www.feelsafer.info/stun.html (If this is a blatant lie and nowhere near correct, let me know.)

160/9 = 17.7 (If a few of the shots were less than 17 seconds, obviously one or more of the shots would be in excess of 17 seconds)

I understand there are plenty of extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation, but forgive me if I find it hard to believe there was no way to subdue the bitch somewhere between shots.

[MikeD]

can immobilize an attacker

It can. Did it?

None of us know anything pertinent. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon. Like I said, it's possible it was proper, marginal, or improper use of force. No one knows based on what we've read.

[Spero]

It can. Did it?

None of us know anything pertinent. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon. Like I said, it's possible it was proper, marginal, or improper use of force. No one knows based on what we've read.

Yes, we can't be sure.

I still hold 160 seconds of electric stun as excessive (i.e. more than normal), but that's my obviously baseless conclusion.

[MikeD]

Yes, we can't be sure.

I still hold 160 seconds of electric stun as excessive (i.e. more than normal), but that's my obviously baseless conclusion.

Excessive, as a legal term with regard to use of force, doesn't mean "more than normal"...it means "more than justified." (It doesn't even mean "more than necessary.")

[jonKranked]

Hah. As police use-of-force becomes more and more regulated by Constitutional standards, but more and more publicized, people complain more and more about it. Try this **** in, oh, 1859 or 1955. Or in some other country.

touche. but there are also more and more instances of police overstepping their boundaries.

[MikeD]

touche. but there are also more and more instances of police overstepping their boundaries.

I don't think there are...I think people are simply less accepting of police beating the crap out of people today. It used to be considered pretty normal, and standards of force weren't as codified, nor were officers as educated on those codes. (Plus, YouTube didn't exist, nor did camcorders, nor the Internet to move minor news stories everywhere instantaneously...) All of which, I think, means we're moving in the right direction.

[manimal]

I understand there are plenty of extenuating circumstances surrounding the situation, but forgive me if I find it hard to believe there was no way to subdue the bitch somewhere between shots.

a taser is more effective on more people than some other less-lethal applications but there are some who are not affected by it. their options were; 1. keep using the taser in the hopes that she'll drop the weapon or comply or 2. shoot her.
SHE WAS ATTACKING THEM WITH AN EDGED WEAPON!!! helloooo! since when are police required to take a life threatening slice from a knife just to keep an attacker from being harmed? if a knife weilding chick rolled into your house in her wheelchair stabbing at you would YOU try and talk her down? hell no! you'd probably start throwing heavy stuff at her head.
let's get real folks. cops aren't super human. we don't have special powers that make our efforts more effective than...say...your mother's. if some crazy chick in a wheelchair is slicing at me with a knife i'll probably have to take her out because we don't have the luxury of a less-lethal weapon like a taser in my department. or...i suppose i could go out to the car, grab the shotgun and hit her with a beanbag round from 10 feet away. i'm sure that would help her heart condition :rolleyes:

[MikeD]

if some crazy chick in a wheelchair is slicing at me with a knife i'll probably have to take her out because we don't have the luxury of a less-lethal weapon like a taser in my department. or...i suppose i could go out to the car, grab the shotgun and hit her with a beanbag round from 10 feet away. i'm sure that would help her heart condition :rolleyes:

Well, man, let's be fair...you'd probably just walk down some stairs so she couldn't roll her way into a place where she could slice ya...I mean, you ARE dealing with a chick in a wheelchair. But again...the circumstances...who ELSE was she forseeably able to stab??

[manimal]

nah, not me...i can't stand knife wielding wheelchair chicks!

[MikeD]

nah, not me...i can't stand knife wielding wheelchair chicks!

I just shoot the spokes out of their wheels.

[ohio]

if some crazy chick in a wheelchair is slicing at me with a knife i'll probably have to take her out because we don't have the luxury of a less-lethal weapon like a taser in my department. or...i suppose i could go out to the car, grab the shotgun and hit her with a beanbag round from 10 feet away. i'm sure that would help her heart condition :rolleyes:

I keep coming back to the feather duster.

[MikeD]

I keep coming back to the feather duster.

Are you wearing a French maid's outfit? Might explain it.

[BMXman]

touche. but there are also more and more instances of police overstepping their boundaries.


only because that's what sells...I can guarantee you the number of incidents where police are helping someone far outweigh the other...D

[N8]

only because that's what sells...I can guarantee you the number of incidents where police are helping someone far outweigh the other...D

u hit it dead on...

the people complaining the most about the cops are the same one who are outraged when the cops arent around to help them.

[bohorec]

It's hard to handle women these day, particulary pregnant ones, but Taser can do it:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223578_taser10.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si3y9gVxJtE

[BMXman]

It's hard to handle women these day, particulary pregnant ones, but Taser can do it:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/223578_taser10.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si3y9gVxJtE

as mentioned before...another case of not listening th police. If a person wants to be confrontational then you better to be able to accept the consequences pregnant or not. As far as I'm concerned what kind of mother speeds to get her kid to school then resists police after getting busted by police thus putting her unborn child at risk....D

[bohorec]

What kind of police taser women...

[sanjuro]

What kind of police taser women...
Albion
St. Gabriel
Chowchilla

All cities which house lifers and death row inmates. Female inmates.

[3D.]

Back to the Kerry rally... I'll agree, the student was clearly out of line (whole ass) and too pushy with his questions to actually accomplish anything other than getting the boot, but.... the thing I'm trying to figure out here is; since when does an irate speaker who just ran out of mic time EVER deserve to have ANY hand laid on him.

Haven't we seen the drama on Cspan when congress members (actually show up) refuse to agree with each other or keep still when the hammer is being hit.? There aren't enough tazers in DC to handle those guys when their bowls are in an up roar!

If there had been more of an effort to remove him non-violently first, I would have to agree with manimal and the others 100%. But, they grabbed him, basically, as the mic was being turned off.

I don't care how much of a good cop you are, it's absolutely wrong to physically grab someone who is being non-violent and, at that point, truly not refusing anything, other than to shut his mouth. Situations like this will only cause more long term problems between civilians and the police.

My vote is that there was clearly excessive force used from the second they grabbed him:plthumbsdown: he will get payed

[3D.]

Also, there have been references to the idea of, "it's a hell of alot safer than a baton or gun".

Sure, when it's necessary. Let's bare in mind that he was only concealing a book and a big mouth. If he accidentally dropped dead from a bad reaction to the tazer, where would the justification lie?:

He ran out of mic time???

[ALEXIS_DH]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hfZBulx_H-prruRU2Clj0dIgUOww

GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A University of Florida student was Tasered and arrested after trying to ask U.S. Senator John Kerry about the 2004 election and other subjects during a campus forum.

Videos of the incident posted on several Web sites show officers pulling Andrew Meyer, 21, away from the microphone after he asks Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of the secret society Skull and Bones at Yale University.

"He apparently asked several questions — he went on for quite awhile — then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."

As two officers take Meyer by the arms, Kerry, D-Mass., is heard to say, "That's alright, let me answer his question." Audience members applaud, and Meyer struggles to escape for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room.

Meyer screams for help and asks "What did I do?" as he tries to break away from officers. He is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting. Meyer says he will walk out if the officers let him go.

As Kerry tells the audience he will answer the student's "very important question," Meyer struggles on the ground and yells at the officers to release him, crying out, "Don't Tase me, bro," just before he is Tasered. He is then led from the room, screaming, "What did I do?"


MD


bwhahahahahahaha

[Westy]

I just shoot the spokes out of their wheels.

Maybe they were just trying to recharge her batteries.

[MikeD]

...My vote is that there was clearly excessive force used from the second they grabbed him:plthumbsdown: he will get payed

Is your issue that you don't agree with the current Constitutional standards governing the use of force, or that you just don't understand that the cops were operating within them, even in simply removing him from the venue?

[ohio]

Tazing an unarmed loudmouth in public is always a bad idea. Even if it's not illegal it's just stupid; it completely freaks everyone out. Teams of police managed to force submission for cuffing long before tazers came along, and it it can't be that hard to put a knee in an unarmed weaklings back, cuff him, and then drag him out screaming the whole way. Manimal, I realize tazing may be the easiest option, but I also don't buy that it's so hard to deal with this kid. ****, any highschool wrestler over 120 lbs could have had this kid on the ground with his arm twisted behind his back in about 5 seconds.

If the protocol/EOF is to use a tazer in this situation, the protocol should change. "It's hard" is not a good enough reason for me when someone is resisting. Attacking, sure, light him up, but unarmed and resisting I say suck it up and do it the hard way.

[ohio]

oh great another tazer issue that will get blown out of proportion...it's really so simple resist and pay the price

I don't think anyone disagrees there should be a price, but what's the right price in your mind? The fact is a tazer IS a weapon, and when you start using a weapon other than your hands on someone it becomes very scary to the public that cops are trying to serve. It shifts the perception from "subduing" to "attacking" whether that's the reality or not. This crowd went from cheering at the jackasses removal, to screaming at the cops in about 5 seconds. Bouncers at bars, concert security, and (as mentioned above) high-school wrestlers all manage to deal with folks a lot more aggressive than this kid and they do it without tazers.

[3D.]

I don't think anyone disagrees there should be a price, but what's the right price in your mind? The fact is a tazer IS a weapon, and when you start using a weapon other than your hands on someone it becomes very scary to the public that cops are trying to serve. It shifts the perception from "subduing" to "attacking" whether that's the reality or not. This crowd went from cheering at the jackasses removal, to screaming at the cops in about 5 seconds. Bouncers at bars, concert security, and (as mentioned above) high-school wrestlers all manage to deal with folks a lot more aggressive than this kid and they do it without tazers.

Well said

[3D.]

Is your issue that you don't agree with the current Constitutional standards governing the use of force, or that you just don't understand that the cops were operating within them, even in simply removing him from the venue?

I am very much for our current constitutional rights, so I'm a little confused on that comment.

Never the less, they had no right to physically grab him like they did. Do you really think they couldn't have escorted that kid out of the building in any other fashion. He wasn't violent... he was a nerd!

even in simply removing him from the venue?
There was nothing simple about the way they removed him, they were enraged with anger the second they grabbed his arm.

Don't you realize that it's loud mouthed geeks like him that has made this country into a (somewhat) free nation.

Without guys like that all of you cops would be dressed in military gear carrying an M16 wishing you were in a different country.

[H8R]

Why didn't they hit Kerry in the nuts with the tazer? I mean come ON. That would have been so fvckin rad.

Weak.

[3D.]

Why didn't they hit Kerry in the nuts with the tazer? I mean come ON. That would have been so fvckin rad.

Weak.

Yeah, he's the fake mother fvcker that really deserves it

[BMXman]

lol...sorry but in today's world which has become increasingly violent...law enforcement just can't take the chances they once use to...I think people need to stop focusing so much on the tazer...I have been hit with a tazer and I have been "subdued" with a baton...If I had the choice I would take the tazer every time....D

[3D.]

lol...sorry but in today's world which has become increasingly violent...law enforcement just can't take the chances they once use to...I think people need to stop focusing so much on the tazer...I have been hit with a tazer and I have been "subdued" with a baton...If I had the choice I would take the tazer every time....D

I'm focusing on the way they grabbed him so violently, thats where the trouble began. The tazer was after the fact

These minor disturbances do not need violence as an answer.

[Westy]

I don't think anyone disagrees there should be a price, but what's the right price in your mind? The fact is a tazer IS a weapon, and when you start using a weapon other than your hands on someone it becomes very scary to the public that cops are trying to serve. It shifts the perception from "subduing" to "attacking" whether that's the reality or not. This crowd went from cheering at the jackasses removal, to screaming at the cops in about 5 seconds. Bouncers at bars, concert security, and (as mentioned above) high-school wrestlers all manage to deal with folks a lot more aggressive than this kid and they do it without tazers.

I have a few friends that would argue that bouncers use excessive force.

[BMXman]

I'm focusing on the way they grabbed him so violently, thats where the trouble began. The tazer was after the fact

These minor disturbances do not need violence as an answer.

You need to see the full video...he was told his time was up and asked a number of times to leave the mic...he resisted and payed the price...it's that simple...at the end of the video the audience was applauding the cops!...D

[Silver]

You need to see the full video...he was told his time was up and asked a number of times to leave the mic...he resisted and payed the price...it's that simple...at the end of the video the audience was applauding the cops!...D

And the speaker also said, "It's ok, I'll answer." (Or something that meant the same thing. Since I noticed it the first time, I'll let you go back and watch the video for the exact words that Kerry uses...)

[BMXman]

And the speaker also said, "It's ok, I'll answer." (Or something that meant the same thing. Since I noticed it the first time, I'll let you go back and watch the video for the exact words that Kerry uses...)


that was after the guy resisted....I actually saw the whole video on TV...I have yet to find an online source that shows the entire thing...D

[Silver]

that was after the guy resisted....I actually saw the whole video on TV...I have yet to find an online source that shows the entire thing...D

No, it's basically the same time. You see a guy in a suit give the "cut him off motion", one of the cops grabs his arm, he pulls away, and Kerry says "It's ok, I'll answer the question." Now, if the cops do what the speaker says, there is a pretty good chance nothing happens.

It's in the youtube link in the first post...

[RenegadeRick]

I think the best thing about cops using the taser on people is that they often end up getting a vacation as a result.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-taser-cases,1,7071397.story?track=rss
University of Florida President Bernie Machen said the use of the Taser, with the student yelling, "Don't Tase me, bro!" was "regretful." He requested a state probe of campus police actions and placed two officers on leave.


Talk about an incentive!

[MikeD]

I am very much for our current constitutional rights, so I'm a little confused on that comment.

Never the less, they had no right to physically grab him like they did.


Yes, they did. They were within the Constitutional standards for the use of force when they grabbed him. (Local or department policy can restrict them further, however...so they may have been in violation of their own standards.)

That's what my comment was about. Either you don't understand the Constitutional standards for use of force by police, since you say they had no "right" to do what they did, or you do understand them but you don't agree with them.

[manimal]

I'm focusing on the way they grabbed him so violently, thats where the trouble began. The tazer was after the fact

These minor disturbances do not need violence as an answer.

would you rather them cup his balls and gently ask him to leave? the dude was obviously not going quietly. with police force their is either action or no action. if we grab someone, we GRAB them. if we have to hit someone w/ baton we don't give 'em love taps. if someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm toward us or others we don't shoot to wound.

the moment we start "playing nice" in resistance situations is when we lose control of the ability to maintain order.
it's not a "jock syndrome" or "power-trip" thing, it's the fact that apprehension, fear and a weak response is a good way to get hurt or dead.

with that said, i personally would have used his left hand to scratch his right ear behind his back and lovingly walked him out. if we ever get tasers, i plan on reserving the use of it for times when going hands on is not an option.

[MikeD]

To sum up:

-Cops wouldn't be facing all this if they'd let Kerry just answer the question.

-Cops applied a legal amount of force by Constitutional standards. They can be sued, but they'll win, and they'll have qualified immunity.

-Cops did not apply a minimum amount of force; this does not make their use of force legally inappropriate, but is obviously not helping them or their image.

-Cops could still face action from their own chain of command if they violated a use-of-force policy to which they're held at a level below the Constitutional, particularly as regards use the taser.

[ohio]

with that said, i personally would have used his left hand to scratch his right ear behind his back and lovingly walked him out. if we ever get tasers, i plan on reserving the use of it for times when going hands on is not an option.

Cool. That's what I was looking for. And I realize (to Westy's comment about bouncers) that it may actually be more painful or damaging (rotator cuff, etc.) than a tazer... for me the issue isn't about use of force, it's about baggage and perception that comes from using a weapon on an unarmed non-violent citizen.

[ohio]

To sum up:

-Cops wouldn't be facing all this if they'd let Kerry just answer the question.

-Cops applied a legal amount of force by Constitutional standards. They can be sued, but they'll win, and they'll have qualified immunity.

-Cops did not apply a minimum amount of force; this does not make their use of force legally inappropriate, but is obviously not helping them or their image.

-Cops could still face action from their own chain of command if they violated a use-of-force policy to which they're held at a level below the Constitutional, particularly as regards use the taser.

Damn you and your fancy "logic."

[3D.]

with that said, i personally would have used his left hand to scratch his right ear behind his back and lovingly walked him out. if we ever get tasers, i plan on reserving the use of it for times when going hands on is not an option.

I think if more law enforcement types thought like you, we wouldn't of had to start this thread.

I'm sure it can get complicated out there, but there shouldn't be a "standard procedure" when trying to subdue someone. Every situation does not have to get violent, especially when dealing with protesters.

[Westy]

Cool. That's what I was looking for. And I realize (to Westy's comment about bouncers) that it may actually be more painful or damaging (rotator cuff, etc.) than a tazer... for me the issue isn't about use of force, it's about baggage and perception that comes from using a weapon on an unarmed non-violent citizen.

Although I have never been tazered I think I'd rather get the shock then have maximum physical restraining force used.

[RenegadeRick]

:imstupid: I guess.

I don't recall the Constitution mentioning an appropriate use of force. Maybe I missed it?

[MikeD]

4th amendment. Reasonable seizure. Standards are defined by SCOTUS rulings.

[valve bouncer]

would you rather them cup his balls and gently ask him to leave?

.

:clapping::clapping::clapping: Beautiful. Like when you go to the dentist, as Dr Mengele puts the drill in your mouth, grab his balls and say "now, we're not going to hurt each other are we?".

[sanjuro]

I watched from the part when he asked about Skull and Bones to when he was tasered.

He wouldn't leave, he struggled against the police (and I noticed he was about as tall as the large black cop). Besides all the crying about "what did I do", I find when the police ask you do something, and you fail to do it and then resist, you get what you get.

I did enjoy hearing the girl scream to let him go, as well as all the complaints about police brutality.

I remember the one time I had to throw someone out of a club. He was a stranger, but we had mutual friends, and I was punched in my face multiple times. Of course, the friends I had that were not mutual, i.e. strangers to this kid, proceeded to beat the **** out of him.

If he had left quietly, there would not have been a problem. Of course, I had to throw him out because he started up with other friends of mine.

I think everyone who thinks this was brutality either did not watch the video or never had to throw someone out who did not want to leave.

Brutality is when you beat someone past the point of submission. That kid did not submit until he was shocked, then he gave up.

[bohorec]

Albion
St. Gabriel
Chowchilla

All cities which house lifers and death row inmates. Female inmates.

They taser them before they kill them?

[sanjuro]

The voltage is much higher during their executions...

[bohorec]

Now I understand, tasering them is basically act of humanity (so they get used to voltage)

[sanjuro]

Tell me, how should the police subdue people? Kind words?

[OrthoPT]

Tell me, how should the police subdue people? Kind words?
Maybe passive aggression.

[BMXman]

I watched from the part when he asked about Skull and Bones to when he was tasered.

He wouldn't leave, he struggled against the police (and I noticed he was about as tall as the large black cop). Besides all the crying about "what did I do", I find when the police ask you do something, and you fail to do it and then resist, you get what you get.

I did enjoy hearing the girl scream to let him go, as well as all the complaints about police brutality.

I remember the one time I had to throw someone out of a club. He was a stranger, but we had mutual friends, and I was punched in my face multiple times. Of course, the friends I had that were not mutual, i.e. strangers to this kid, proceeded to beat the **** out of him.

If he had left quietly, there would not have been a problem. Of course, I had to throw him out because he started up with other friends of mine.

I think everyone who thinks this was brutality either did not watch the video or never had to throw someone out who did not want to leave.

Brutality is when you beat someone past the point of submission. That kid did not submit until he was shocked, then he gave up.


well said I just think to many people are posting what they think should have been done...and they really have no real experience with police and procedures...D

[Westy]

Maybe passive aggression.

Not leaving makes you look fat.

[manimal]

well said I just think to many people are posting what they think should have been done...and they really have no real experience with police and procedures...D

thank god the supreme court uses the "reasonableness" standard.

[sanjuro]

I suggest at the next Monkeyfest that Manimal goes to, he gives a submission clinic, except you have to submit Manimal...

[ohio]

Tell me, how should the police subdue people? Kind words?

Firmly, forcefully, and roughly if need be. But it's in their own best interests to only utilize a weapon when they themselves are being attacked or are in imminent danger of being attacked. I don't see that there's ever a need to use a weapon for compliance, unless the lack of compliance is putting the cops or others present in physical danger. Sure it makes them more compliant, but if they don't need to use it, they shouldn't.

edit: somehow didn't finish the sentence

[OrthoPT]

Firmly, forcefully, and roughly if need be. But it's in their own best interests to only utilize a weapon when they themselves are being attacked or are in imminent danger of being attacked. I don't see that there's ever a need to use a weapon for compliance, unless the lack of compliance is putting the cops . Sure it makes them more compliant, but if they don't need to use it, they shouldn't.

I think you should try walking a mile in someone's shoes before you start telling them how to do their jobs. You will never really know what it's like until you try it yourself. JMHO.

[valve bouncer]

Tell me, how should the police subdue people? Kind words?

Actually, yes. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest Manimal will agree with me on this- the best weapon in any cops armoury is the gift of the gab. Being able to persuade/convince someone to come quietly/stfu/ go home just by talking to them is something every good cop knows how to do. Obviously there are times when firmer methods of compliance are used but the first step should be in most cases a bit of a chat.

[MikeD]

Actually, yes. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest Manimal will agree with me on this- the best weapon in any cops armoury is the gift of the gab. Being able to persuade/convince someone to come quietly/stfu/ go home just by talking to them is something every good cop knows how to do. Obviously there are times when firmer methods of compliance are used but the first step should be in most cases a bit of a chat.

100%...but there's not always time to do that, and you can also develop a sense as to when talking is best bypassed.

And to be completely clear, a cop doesn't have to exhaust all lesser means before using a higher level of force.

[BMXman]

I think you should try walking a mile in someone's shoes before you start telling them how to do their jobs. You will never really know what it's like until you try it yourself. JMHO.


another quality post...rep given!!

[ohio]

I think you should try walking a mile in someone's shoes before you start telling them how to do their jobs. You will never really know what it's like until you try it yourself. JMHO.

You a cop?

edit: heaven forbid we try to find ways to help cops do their job without being vilified. shame on me. I have no doubt getting an agitated asshole to comply is difficult, a real pain in the ass, but guess what? Some jobs are hard. Boo ****ing hoo. I hope folks don't sign up for the police force because they hope it's easy. I'm under no illusions about the legality here... I believe the cops were well-within the law, but if they hope to protect their image (which is vital to their ongoing safety and ability to do their jobs) then it is just plain stupid to use a weapon to gain compliance when there is no physical threat.

edit2: and for reference, I have dragged an agitated asshole out of a public place. I managed to do it without 6 friends or a tazer. Probably not a mile though... closer to 200ft.

[OrthoPT]

You a cop?

edit: heaven forbid we try to find ways to help cops do their job without being vilified. shame on me. I have no doubt getting an agitated asshole to comply is difficult, a real pain in the ass, but guess what? Some jobs are hard. Boo ****ing hoo. I hope folks don't sign up for the police force because they hope it's easy. I'm under no illusions about the legality here... I believe the cops were well-within the law, but if they hope to protect their image (which is vital to their ongoing safety and ability to do their jobs) then it is just plain stupid to use a weapon to gain compliance when there is no physical threat.

edit2: and for reference, I have dragged an agitated asshole out of a public place. I managed to do it without 6 friends or a tazer. Probably not a mile though... closer to 200ft.

Wow. That really got to you huh? Haven't thought up edit #3 yet? You probably think you could give an attorney advice on how to try their next case, or a Wall Street portfolio manager how to manage their accounts. BTW, I have no idea what you do nor do I care, those were just examples of how you appear to me. Bravo on pulling the "asshole" out of the public place. I wonder if you'd care to do that as part of your regular job without one to back you up. I don't. That's why I'm not a cop. But in that same turn, as I said before, I don't pass judgment on those who do because I don't know for sure that I wouldn't do the same thing in were I in their place. Police officers should be mindful of their public image, true, but they should first be concerned with their safety and ability to continue to do their jobs for the rest of the day/week/year. I bet they wanted to get the guy under control and out of the room as quickly as possible more than they wanted to "look good" while getting it done. Personally, I don't blame them, because the longer a struggle continues the higher the probability someone's going to get hurt.

[sunny]

I wonder if this kid ever had any discipline in his life...


http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/mtbsunny/misc/x_donttasemebro.jpg

Order yours today (http://www.cafepress.com/tasebro)!

/husband sent me the link for the shirts
//glad no one got hurt
///can't we all just get along?

[bohorec]

And to be completely clear, a cop doesn't have to exhaust all lesser means before using a higher level of force.

Tell that to her and her kids:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/03/27/PH2007032702487.jpg


“Lt. William Browne of the WPD then fired three shots into Hale’s chest, which eventually killed him,” the complaint states. “Lt. Browne failed to exhaust all other reasonable means of apprehension before using deadly force.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702486.html

[valve bouncer]

Is there an official inquest into every fatal police shooting? I only ask because there's one going on back home at the moment and was wondering how it worked in the US.

If you're interested, the case I referred to is here, looks justified;
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22427298-2761,00.html

A DOUBLE murderer on the run was shot dead by a WA policeman he assaulted and threatened to kill after being pulled over for stealing fuel, an inquest was told today.

William John Watkins, 38, died after being shot in the chest by acting sergeant Shane Gray (Gray) on January 31, 2006, on a highway 20km south of Karratha in the remote Pilbara.

The unsuspecting officer had pulled Watkins over for stealing $80.06 worth of petrol from the Fortescue roadhouse.

He did not know Watkins was on the run for the rape and double homicide in Melbourne of sisters Colleen Irwin 32, and Laura Irwin, 21, whose bodies were found on January 28, 2006.

Watkins was shot after bashing Sgt Gray, breaking his nose.

WA Coroner Alastair Hope began examining the first of 18 witnesses today to ensure accounts support Sgt Gray's claim he pulled trigger twice fearing for his life.

[bohorec]

Tell me, how should the police subdue people? Kind words?

Depends on situation. There was no need to taser this kid, even if the video was amusing for some people.

[MikeD]

Tell that to her and her kids:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/03/27/PH2007032702487.jpg



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/27/AR2007032702486.html

That story, if the truth is at all close to what the allegations are, is about an abusive and murderous use-of-force by police.

However, that doesn't mean that police have to exhaust lesser means before using higher ones. Some departments may have policies that mandate a specific continuum of force at a more restrictive standard, but that also doesn't make cops in such departments criminals for breaking their own policies...it just means they can be disciplined or fired by their department for violating policy.

The level of force is Constitutionally set at "reasonable," not "minimum."

[sanjuro]

Depends on situation. There was no need to taser this kid, even if the video was amusing for some people.

People keep saying that, but I have yet to hear the alternate to removing a struggling, full sized adult?

Seriously, run down to your local bar and pick a stranger up and drag him out. Tell me how that works for you.

[MikeD]

Is there an official inquest into every fatal police shooting? I only ask because there's one going on back home at the moment and was wondering how it worked in the US.

If you're interested, the case I referred to is here, looks justified;
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22427298-2761,00.html

Police here receive a referendum trial-by-Internet...

Yeah, of course there's an investigation into anything that results in someone's death.

I hope the facts play out as in the link you sent. Is it necessary that Australian police be in fear of their own lives prior to using deadly force?

[ohio]

but they should first be concerned with their safety and ability to continue to do their jobs for the rest of the day/week/year.

That's why they should have just shot him in the face right off the bat. I don't know why they even waited two minutes as he could have easily gotten a bitch-slap or nipple-twist in during those precious seconds before they tazed him.

[RenegadeRick]

and finally, it comes to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc

[valve bouncer]

I hope the facts play out as in the link you sent. Is it necessary that Australian police be in fear of their own lives prior to using deadly force?
My cousin has been a cop for 20 years and I asked him if he's ever fired his gun and he just laughed and said "only at paper targets". He told me even getting the thing out of its holster results in a night of paperwork. It's very rare that the cops shoot anyone in Western Australia, maybe once every 3 or 4 years. In the east with the bigger population it happens once or twice a year. Its even rarer that police get murdered. In WA the last cop murder was in 1978.
The cops do however get in lots of fights and frequently get their arses kicked as well as giving ratbags and meatheads a good kickin'.

[Secret Squirrel]

The cops do however get in lots of fights and frequently get their arses kicked as well as giving ratbags and meatheads a good kickin'.

Isn't Ratbag Kickin' the national pasttime? I mean it's just good natured fun after a jug of vodka right?

[OrthoPT]

and finally, it comes to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for that. :clapping: :thumb:

[dhbuilder]

i say, "taze him again bro."

[BMXman]

i say, "taze him again bro."

but tasers are such dangerous weapons :D

[manimal]

He told me even getting the thing out of its holster results in a night of paperwork. .

wow, i'm glad we don't have to do gun point reports anymore, i'd never get anything done. with an average of 2 felony/high risk arrest per week, my gun is out of the holster a lot. clearing buildings, arrest warrants, armed robbery response........

we've had two officer involved shootings in two years. both were deemed justified. the most recent one was textbook. crazy guy pistol whips customers in a convenience store, walks outside w/ gun still in hand. officer approaches from the rear, orders him to drop the weapon about 50 times (according to witnesses). suspect turns toward officer with gun drawn, officer center-punches him 4 times then immediately begins cpr.
turns out the gun was empty and the family came to the PD that evening and stated that his last words as he left the house to get a beer was, "a cop's gonna have to kill me today." they thought he was joking.
no chance of a civil suite there :thumb:

[MikeD]

turns out the gun was empty and the family came to the PD that evening and stated that his last words as he left the house to get a beer was, "a cop's gonna have to kill me today." they thought he was joking.
no chance of a civil suite there :thumb:

You insensitive prick! That man was MENTALLY ILL! No mentally ill person should be punished for it by being shot by the psychotics we hire as police these days. The gun wasn't even loaded! What the hell did that stupid officer shoot him for, then!?

[DaveW]

to prove darwin right (yet again). :clue:

[ohio]

You insensitive prick! That man was MENTALLY ILL! No mentally ill person should be punished for it by being shot by the psychotics we hire as police these days. The gun wasn't even loaded! What the hell did that stupid officer shoot him for, then!?

Obviously, it was racially motivated.

(manimal, he was totally black/latino/arab, right? we know cops don't shoot the white ones)

[ALEXIS_DH]

wow, i'm glad we don't have to do gun point reports anymore, i'd never get anything done. with an average of 2 felony/high risk arrest per week, my gun is out of the holster a lot. clearing buildings, arrest warrants, armed robbery response........

we've had two officer involved shootings in two years. both were deemed justified. the most recent one was textbook. crazy guy pistol whips customers in a convenience store, walks outside w/ gun still in hand. officer approaches from the rear, orders him to drop the weapon about 50 times (according to witnesses). suspect turns toward officer with gun drawn, officer center-punches him 4 times then immediately begins cpr.
turns out the gun was empty and the family came to the PD that evening and stated that his last words as he left the house to get a beer was, "a cop's gonna have to kill me today." they thought he was joking.
no chance of a civil suite there :thumb:

hey, i´ve got a question.
do you guys (cops) think about where to aim before shooting a person??

i guess i´d insctintively aim for the head/torso if i was to shoot a gun... but what about you? does the idea of a potential lawsuit and how the circumstances would appear to a jury roam your head?

[MikeD]

hey, i´ve got a question.
do you guys (cops) think about where to aim before shooting a person??

i guess i´d insctintively aim for the head/torso if i was to shoot a gun... but what about you? does the idea of a potential lawsuit and how the circumstances would appear to a jury roam your head?

What you're trained to do and what you actually do (or can manage to do) under stress are sometimes different things...especially when things like someone pointing a gun back at you or dodging behind cover come into play.

However, cops are trained to shoot at the center of whatever target is presented to them, whether it's a full torso or part of a body sticking out from behind an object.

There's no allowance for shooting someone in a "non-critical" spot to wound them...it's a matter of shooting at whatever you're most likely to hit and whatever will most likely stop the attack the quickest (the center of the chest).

The only variation is a "failure to stop" drill, which means you go for a head shot, if feasible, after delivering rounds to the chest which do not stop the target. (Body armor, drugs, crazed psychotics...)

And once you throw in your movement, target movement, obstacles, etc., the rules from the square, static range can get tossed out.

[RenegadeRick]

but tasers are such dangerous weapons :D

Apparently not. This headline claims they are safe, just make sure to skip over the section that I bolded in the quoted article. :poster_oops:


Study: Tasers Safe for Police to Use (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-taser-safety,1,1649203.story?track=rss)
By TIM KLASS | Associated Press Writer
6:03 AM CDT, October 9, 2007

Tasers and similar stun guns, increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies nationwide, are generally safe for police to use, according to new research.

In what was called the first large independent study of injuries from Tasers, researchers reviewed 962 cases in six locations. Nearly all the cases they found resulted in no injuries or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises.

"This is the first time we've got an accounting of how likely it is that you'll be seriously injured by one of these devices," said lead researcher, Dr. William P. Bozeman, an emergency medical specialist at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

He presented the research Monday at a meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians in Seattle.

While the research found that stun guns are safe, Bozeman cautioned, "These are serious weapons. They absolutely have the potential to injure or kill people."

In the cases reviewed for the study, two people died, but autopsies found neither death was related to use of a Taser. Three people were hospitalized after being zapped, two with injuries from falls. It was unclear whether a third hospitalization was related to the use of a stun gun, according to the researchers.

Stun guns deliver temporarily disabling bursts of electricity for several seconds. Police say they help avoid hand-to-hand struggles that can injure officers and citizens. They have become common in recent years, with the weapons in use by thousands of law enforcement agencies.

Taser use by police drew national attention recently after video circulated widely of police shocking a university student in Florida who persistently questioned Sen. John Kerry during a forum and refused to yield the microphone.

Taser critics say the devices are prone to misuse by police who fire them too readily at people who may be mentally ill, high on drugs or vulnerable because of medical conditions.

"Those statistics were surprising to me, considering the number of injuries, including to police officers, that have been reported," said Lauren Regan, executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene, Ore., which opposes the weapons.

By July, Amnesty International USA had tallied 250 cases in six years in which people died after being stunned with Tasers, but the group didn't track the individual causes of death.

According to the manufacturer, Taser International Inc., the devices have been listed as a contributing factor in about 12 deaths.

Dr. Robert R. Bass, executive director of the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems and a leader in the college's Tactical Emergency Medicine Section, said he was familiar with an earlier analysis that covered 597 cases.

He said he found "somewhat reassuring" the findings that the devices are safer than individual reports of death and injury would suggest.

The cases in the study were compiled by six law enforcement agencies ranging in size. Each had a defined policy on Taser use and injury reporting, and a doctor who works with officers and anyone who is subdued with the devices.

The doctor was responsible for submitting each case to the research team.

The cities were not identified.

The study was paid for by the National Institute of Justice, the Justice Department's research and development branch. But the institute had no part in the study's design or analysis, Bozeman said.

[OrthoPT]

"Study: Tasers Safe for Police to Use
By TIM KLASS | Associated Press Writer
6:03 AM CDT, October 9, 2007

Tasers and similar stun guns, increasingly popular among law enforcement agencies nationwide, are generally safe for police to use, according to new research.
... Nearly all the cases they found resulted in no injuries or minor ones such as scrapes and bruises.
"This is the first time we've got an accounting of how likely it is that you'll be seriously injured by one of these devices," said lead researcher, Dr. William P. Bozeman, an emergency medical specialist at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine...
In the cases reviewed for the study, two people died, but autopsies found neither death was related to use of a Taser. Three people were hospitalized after being zapped, two with injuries from falls. It was unclear whether a third hospitalization was related to the use of a stun gun, according to the researchers...
By July, Amnesty International USA had tallied 250 cases in six years in which people died after being stunned with Tasers, but the group didn't track the individual causes of death...
Dr. Robert R. Bass, executive director of the Maryland ... said he found "somewhat reassuring" the findings that the devices are safer than individual reports of death and injury would suggest."

I don't know. Maybe you're right, RR. Cops should take a complete medical history before trying to restrain a non-compliant person. Maybe even issue nerf guns and bats instead of the real thing?!?

[MikeD]

All the study really needs to show is that tasers are safer than bullets. That seems pretty easy.

[X3pilot]

92788


Sorry, couldn't help it.

[RenegadeRick]

All the study really needs to show is that tasers are safer than bullets. That seems pretty easy.

It does doesn't it? Now if they were only used in situations previously requiring bullets they would have my FULL AND COMPLETE support.

[MikeD]

It does doesn't it? Now if they were only used in situations previously requiring bullets they would have my FULL AND COMPLETE support.

I was being glib.

If there's a situation that requires bullets, there's a reasonable chance that someone other than the perpetrator will die or sustain serious injury. I won't let that person's life, or my own, ride on the chance of two little prongs getting through someone's clothes so he can be shocked silly. It'd be irresponsible of me to do so, especially just so I can save a perpetrator from injury or death.

So the perp gets 9mm, in heavy dosage. Really sucks to be him. But he could have stayed at home and not threatened anyone's life, couldn't he?

That said, the taser does allow cops to push back that envelope of death or serious injury...two officers confront man with knife. Given the opportunity, one deploys a taser while the other covers with a firearm. That's a nice neat scenario, but not always a possible one. The problem with the taser, per se, is that it makes people like you think that it's always a viable option, so your sympathies go to the poor assailant instead of the victim and/or the police (who themselves may be victims.)

[Westy]

Wouldn't be more apropriate to compare a tazer to being physically restrained instead of being shot. What is more dangerous, having your arm bent behind your head like gumby and your face smashed into the ground or being tazed. I'll take the tazer myself.

Don't most officers have to be on the recieving end of a tazer before they are allowed to use one? How many deaths result from that?

[BurlyShirley]

Im personally in favor of mandatory tazings for everyone who isnt me.

[RenegadeRick]

I repped you up on your reply. It is quite wise.

But here is the thing...


That said, the taser does allow cops to push back that envelope of death or serious injury...

It sure does, but there is always the potential for death to occur as a result. Taser use should not be taken lightly and as such...


The problem with the taser, per se, is that it makes people like you think that it's always a viable option, so your sympathies go to the poor assailant instead of the victim and/or the police (who themselves may be victims.)

It's not so much that I consider it a viable option, but rather that the police consider it an easy one.

In my opinion, because you cannot know the end result of taser use, it should not be used in a case where deadly force would not be justified.

And like in this case, when you see 5 or 6 officers holding a kid (who threatened nobody) down and using the taser on him, how can the people help but sympathize with the taser-ee?

Tasers are not compliance tools, they are weapons, and should be treated as such.

[manimal]

Don't most officers have to be on the recieving end of a tazer before they are allowed to use one? How many deaths result from that?

yes and none.

[RenegadeRick]

Don't most officers have to be on the recieving end of a tazer before they are allowed to use one? How many deaths result from that?

Two issues here.

1. Lugnuts, OMGF, and myself discussed this previously, and the means used in training would not deliver a full jolt:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2361611&highlight=taser#post2361611

2. Dunkin' Donuts aside, wouldn't one reasonably expect officers to be in better physical condition than the general population, and also less likely to be hopped up on meth or [insert drug of choice here]?

[Westy]

Two issues here.

1. Lugnuts, OMGF, and myself discussed this previously, and the means used in training would not deliver a full jolt:
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2361611&highlight=taser#post2361611

2. Dunkin' Donuts aside, wouldn't one reasonably expect officers to be in better physical condition than the general population, and also less likely to be hopped up on meth or [insert drug of choice here]?

I would also expect police officers to not find themselves in situations where they needed to be restrained or removed from a situation. Kind words and promises of candy will not stop people from behaving poorly.

[BurlyShirley]

I would also expect police officers to not find themselves in situations where they needed to be restrained or removed from a situation. Kind words and promises of candy will not stop people from behaving poorly.

Well (serious hat on) "needed to be restrained" is really the issue here though. I mean the guy in question wasnt a threat, I agree with Rick on this issue to a point. I think its ok in violent situations, not just in "deadly force" situations, but for unruly guests at a speech who pose no physical threat? Really?

[Westy]

Well (serious hat on) "needed to be restrained" is really the issue here though. I mean the guy in question wasnt a threat, I agree with Rick on this issue to a point. I think its ok in violent situations, not just in "deadly force" situations, but for unruly guests at a speech who pose no physical threat? Really?

We are all pissing over details that are really opinions at this point but the guy did struggle to escape. Intentional or not struggling to escape can still hurt the person or officer, Tazing is still probably the safest for all parties. Just think of that douchebag Milton Bradly who blew his knee out while trying to be held back from a ref by one of his coaches.

[OrthoPT]

Leave it to Westy to pull the "Milton Bradly" card...:banana:

[Westy]

Leave it to Westy to pull the "Milton Bradly" card...:banana:

He would have been much better off if the coach just tazed him.

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm not very good at creating .gif's...so if anyone can take that Will Ferrell gif of him hitting the cowbell and put electric looking flashes and sparks eminating from him with the words, "More Taser!" I would be forever indebted.

[OrthoPT]

y'see? that's m'point!

[MikeD]

In my opinion, because you cannot know the end result of taser use, it should not be used in a case where deadly force would not be justified.


You can't know the end result of pretty much anything you do.

Someone can be allergic to OC, someone can get smacked in the head with a baton. Tasers are as safe or safer than doing a lot of other non-lethal things...just avoid tasing the exceedingly old or young person. I'd hope that doesn't lead to shooting them instead, though.

Non-lethal means not reasonably likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Tasers aren't reasonably likely to do that and don't generally cause harm as lasting as that delivered by a good old-fashioned ass-whupping.


And like in this case, when you see 5 or 6 officers holding a kid (who threatened nobody) down and using the taser on him, how can the people help but sympathize with the taser-ee?

Tasers are not compliance tools, they are weapons, and should be treated as such.

Correct. I also agree it's an odd use of a taser in this case, given that they had hands-on already...and I don't know their department policy on the use of the taser, which may specify, with more restriction than the Constitutional standards, when a taser may be used

However, the kid offered decidely active resisitance (this does not mean fighting, necessarily...his attempts to pull away are obvious and active) up until he was on the ground, and we can't see what was going on under that dog-pile. The taser, as an intermediate weapon, is appropriate to overcome active resistance.

Anyhow, definitely appreciate a reasoned conversation on the topic...

[Silver]

How long before passive resistance is grounds for using a taser?

I say less than 10 years before you'll find police departments tasering every protester except for the ones in front of an abortion clinic. Hell, it's not like the Supreme Court is going to say no to that...

[OrthoPT]

oh, stop being dramatic, Nancy.

[DaveW]

How long before passive resistance is grounds for using a taser?

I say less than 10 years before you'll find police departments tasering every protester except for the ones in front of an abortion clinic. Hell, it's not like the Supreme Court is going to say no to that...



You must spread some reputation around before giving it to silver again.

:disgust: :(

[ohio]

How long before passive resistance is grounds for using a taser?


Gandhi does lose some of his magic if you picture him shouting "don't tase me, bro" in a thick Indian accent.

[syadasti]

Coming soon: Directed Energy Weapons (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=482560&in_page_id=1965)

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/us_unveils_new.html

"Don't cook me, bro!"

And a document released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act talks of "optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation" - i.e. cause the maximum agony possible, leaving no permanent damage.

Perhaps the most alarming prospect is that such machines would make efficient torture instruments.

They are quick, clean, cheap, easy to use and, most importantly, leave no marks. What would happen if they fell into the hands of unscrupulous nations where torture is not unknown?

The agony the Raytheon gun inflicts is probably equal to anything in a torture chamber - these waves are tuned to a frequency exactly designed to stimulate the pain nerves.

I couldn't hold my finger next to the device for more than a fraction of a second. I could make the pain stop, but what if my finger had been strapped to the machine?

Dr John Wood, a biologist at UCL and an expert in the way the brain perceives pain, is horrified by the new pain weapons.

"They are so obviously useful as torture instruments," he says.

"It is ethically dubious to say they are useful for crowd control when they will obviously be used by unscrupulous people for torture."

We use the word "medieval" as shorthand for brutality. The truth is that new technology makes racks look benign.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

[MikeD]

Gandhi does lose some of his magic if you picture him shouting "don't tase me, bro" in a thick Indian accent.

Then it'd be "Do not tase me, bro!" I think he'd drop the contraction.

[MikeD]

"Don't cook me, bro!"

Does that have a "reverse" switch? 'Cuz that might feel pretty good.

Wasn't there a movie about that?

[RenegadeRick]

I would also expect police officers to not find themselves in situations where they needed to be restrained or removed from a situation.

You mean like this officer?

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/10/09/783975.html&cookieattempt=1

I guess you probably are right. This officer didn't need to be restrained or removed, he needed lead. Luckily, he realized this on his own and self-adminstered... 3 times!

[binary visions]

You mean like this officer?

...and how is this relevant in the slightest?

[RenegadeRick]

...and how is this relevant in the slightest?

I wondered about that myself, but other than to dispute Westy, it isn't relevant at all.

COPS ARE PEOPLE TOO!

http://www.hogmanay.net/images/pix/edinburgh/cop.jpg
HUG A COP TODAY!
(but be careful... it might be misconstrued and could end badly.)

[Westy]

I wondered about that myself, but other than to dispute Westy, it isn't relevant at all.

COPS ARE PEOPLE TOO!

http://www.hogmanay.net/images/pix/edinburgh/cop.jpg
HUG A COP TODAY!
(but be careful... it might be misconstrued and could end badly.)

I feel so disproven. Lord knows that whenever you can call up a handfull of examples it shows that it is true for all cases.

[RenegadeRick]

I feel so disproven. Lord knows that whenever you can call up a handfull of examples it shows that it is true for all cases.

I didn't even provide a handful, just one. Funking crappy proof if you ask me.

I didn't go looking for it or anything, it just came to me in my daily webcrawl.

Anyhow, It's really an interesting article in that it says the cop was actually shot 4 times, and 3 of them were self-inflicted. Impressive. Ain't no way a taser would work on a guy that was able to shoot himself repeatedly. Talk about power, strength and self-control.

It's a stretch at best that it has anything to do with the incident in question.

I'm sorry, Westy. Can you say something funny now?
It would really brighten my day.

[Westy]

I didn't even provide a handful, just one. Funking crappy proof if you ask me.

I didn't go looking for it or anything, it just came to me in my daily webcrawl.

Anyhow, It's really an interesting article in that it says the cop was actually shot 4 times, and 3 of them were self-inflicted. Impressive. Ain't no way a taser would work on a guy that was able to shoot himself repeatedly. Talk about power, strength and self-control.

It's a stretch at best that it has anything to do with the incident in question.

I'm sorry, Westy. Can you say something funny now?
It would really brighten my day.

Pogonotrophy

That is pretty funny, at least as a single word goes.