Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

non-violent anti war protestors were viciously assaulted by pittsburgh police.
here it is. a completely restrained protestor is then let go while she is tasered.
cruel and unusual punishment. keep telling yourself "land of the free"
and bush-lovers...lets see you try to justify this clip (i'm sure you'll try):
http://www.michaelmoore.com/_images/splash/pittsburgh_justice_8_20_05.mov

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/local/12434627.htm

PITTSBURGH - Police charged four people protesting the war in Iraq, two of whom suffered minor injuries from the police response, when 60 people disrupted traffic by marching the wrong way down a busy one-way street toward an Army recruiting station.

The Pittsburgh Organizing Group planned the Saturday morning demonstration. A spokesman for that group, David Meieran, accused police of responding with "inappropriate and excessive force."

Meieran claimed some protesters were pepper sprayed and Tasered; he said a 68-year-old woman who was not resisting was bitten by a police dog.

Police spokeswoman Tammy Ewin initially said no pepper spray was used on protesters, but Sgt. Clint Winkler, a supervisor on duty, told The Associated Press he tried to use pepper spray on one woman who would not leave, but it hit her glasses. She was then subdued with a Taser, Winkler said.

The Taser victim and the dog bite victim were being treated at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital. Winkler confirmed that the older woman was bitten in the leg by a police dog when she refused a police order to disperse.

The names of those charged were not immediately available because they were being readied for arraignment in City Court Saturday afternoon, Winkler said.

Winkler said one teenage female was handcuffed but not arrested when she screamed at and shoved officers. She was cited for disorderly conduct and released.

The recruiting station was not open for business when police responded to reports of the non-permitted march down Forbes Avenue, where the University of Pittsburgh main campus is located.

Winkler said campus police tried to quell the march, and at one point protesters grabbed the camera of a freelance media photographer and broke it. City police tried to help and said some protesters fought the effort to break up the march.

"That's when they were told, due to the violence, that this was no longer a lawful protest," Winkler said. "They were told to disperse, peacefully disperse, and failed to do so we started down the sidewalk - officers in front, K-9's behind us, and started pushing the crowd down the sidewalk."

In addition to the injured women, a man was also arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and failure to disperse.

Winkler said the protest broke up without further incident after the arrests, but Meieran disagreed with the police version of the events.

"The response was way over the top," Meieran said. "Why in the (expletive) were they using Tasers on these nonviolent protesters in the first place? I heard no dispersal order. What they're saying is total (expletive)."

Meieran said the same recruiting station was targeted by marchers two weeks ago, and the office announced beforehand that it would be closed. Meieran said the marchers didn't know if the station would be open when they arrived; it was not.

"Our goal for today was to shut down military recruitment for that station, and to the extent that they may have shut down preemptively, we achieved our goal," Meieran said.

Army officials could not immediately be reached for comment about the march or why that recruiting station was closed.

Funny we only see the part of the clip where she is getting tazered. Not the part where she didnt listen to police to stop blocking the street. "Non violent" yeah.. ok. Next time she will listen to the police.

Originally posted by KidRock
Funny we only see the part of the clip where she is getting tazered. Not the part where she didnt listen to police to stop blocking the street. "Non violent" yeah.. ok. Next time she will listen to the police.

when a person is restrained...they are restrained.
a cop has no right to carry out physical punishment on you.
they had her down, then got up off of her to shock her.
cruel and unusual punishment. what happened previous is irrelevant.
try again

first off...nice avatar PVS...the clown from IT...i love it

the footage does seem a severe...i can only assume its because she wasn't obeying police instructions...but they do seem to have had her restrained...seems a bit stupid that they tazer her while other officers are holding onto her...wont they get shocked as well

Originally posted by jaden101
first off...nice avatar PVS...the clown from IT...i love it

the footage does seem a severe...i can only assume its because she wasn't obeying police instructions...but they do seem to have had her restrained...seems a bit stupid that they tazer her while other officers are holding onto her...wont they get shocked as well

thank you!

and yes, tim curry was born for that role

I'm wondering if we could get a video of the full incident, including before the protestors were "dispersed".

Originally posted by KidRock
Funny we only see the part of the clip where she is getting tazered. Not the part where she didnt listen to police to stop blocking the street. "Non violent" yeah.. ok. Next time she will listen to the police.

Although I am one who often states that if you don't listen to the cops, you are just asking for it, this was pathetic.

The woman was on the ground in a position where she posed no threat. There were multiple officers on-scene who are supposed to be trained to physically restrain violent offenders. That training should have been more than enough to be able to have 2 police officers restrain and arrest a woefully out of shape woman lying on the ground.

I'm not sure whether this is an example of brutality, or a cop who is just too f*cking lazy to do his job and too f*cking stupid to realize that if you are going to taser someone who apparently doesn't deserve it, don't do it infront of both a video camera and an audience.

Kidrock, your defense of this cop seems to be just another act of trolling to get liberals all wound up. To be quite honest, that would be more admirable than defending the cop because you think he made a wise judgement of action.

****ing shit, if this teaches us one thing it's that dumbshit protestors need to keep their slimy hippy asses off of streets and blocking traffic. I have no sympathy for the idiots who do that sort of thing, a bus could plow through them for all I care, serves them right.

Plus, that video is heavily flawed and one sided (made obvious by the fact that it's being hosted from Michealmoore.com). It doesn't show the whole incident, just more propoghanda for hardcore liberals to eat up while spouting falacious arguments relating genocide to the Iraqi War and dimwitted puns on the term "land of the free". It isn't valid evidence for anything.

I'll hold of judgement untill someone releases a full unedited video showing the whole incident, not just what happened once the woman was on the ground.

****ing protestors.

Originally posted by KharmaDog

I'm not sure whether this is an example of brutality, or a cop who is just too f*cking lazy to do his job and too f*cking stupid to realize that if you are going to taser someone who apparently doesn't deserve it, don't do it infront of both a video camera and an audience.


Or an over-zelous tazer trigger-happy cop, OR a cop paid do 'perform' in front of the camera (i know ; but still a possibilty)

I watched it about 3 times and also noticed that it only shows yoiu what it wants you to see which does make it biased. They should have shown the complete footage if they had nothing to hide.

Commenting on the event:

Failure to disperse is asking for it.

Besides "disrupted traffic by marching the wrong way down a busy one-way street toward an Army recruiting station." could have got Protestors run-over, or up in arms with car drivers.

the issue is not whether they deserved to be arrested. quite frankly, i think disrupting traffic should be put to an immediate stop.

the issue is the use of a taser on an restrained person. so please spare me the "****ing protestors" and then go on to say the video is bias because of who hosted it. thats irrelivent, and to even think you can just close the case because of your own bias and then lable the video as bias is pretty hypocritical. im sure the lady was an a$$hole and im sure she was causing problems, but again, she was restrained, so it is irrelivent. and yes, i would like to see what she did before the clip starts, but just out of curiosity.

the point, the single POINT is that two officers had her ON THE GROUND and RESTRAINED. she was tased as punishment, not as a method of restraint. it is a cops duty to arrest and detain if necessary, but NEVER to carry out punishment. if you're willing to accept and support such behavior out of hatred for someone, thats just sad.

Originally posted by BackFire
****ing shit, if this teaches us one thing it's that dumbshit protestors need to keep their slimy hippy asses off of streets and blocking traffic. I have no sympathy for the idiots who do that sort of thing, a bus could plow through them for all I care, serves them right.

Plus, that video is heavily flawed and one sided (made obvious by the fact that it's being hosted from Michealmoore.com). It doesn't show the whole incident, just more propoghanda for hardcore liberals to eat up while spouting falacious arguments relating genocide to the Iraqi War and dimwitted puns on the term "land of the free". It isn't valid evidence for anything.

I'll hold of judgement untill someone releases a full unedited video showing the whole incident, not just what happened once the woman was on the ground.

****ing protestors.

I'm not biased, in fact I said I would hold off judgement until a valid form of the video was released, not this half of the story type video that's available here.

Keep in mind, the woman is being tasered almost immediately when the video starts, you can't tell what she was doing or if she really was restrained enough. She may have been struggling up untill the very second the video turned on because she saw a man with a taser running up to her. In which case the tasering was a neccessary action needed to subdue her properly. In fact, in the first split second of the video you can see her struggling and flailing just a bit, as if her struggling was just about to come to an end. This suggests that she was struggling against the cops holding her down and that the taser was used to subdue her.

But again, we don't know, you don't, I don't, no one but the people who were there that day. And anyone who's trying to claim this video as some kind of viable evidence for anything (other then obvious bias) has no idea what true, valid evidence is.

Brutality is not the word for getting tasered....unless of course the cop repeatadly smacked her in the head.

Thge whole picture must be seen

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm not biased, in fact I said I would hold off judgement until a valid form of the video was released, not this half of the story type video that's available here.

Keep in mind, the woman is being tasered almost immediately when the video starts, you can't tell what she was doing or if they really was restrained enough. She may have been struggling up untill the very second the video turned on because she saw a man with a taser running up to her. In which case the tasering was a neccessary action needed to subdue her properly. In fact, in the first split second of the video you can see her struggling and flailing just a bit, as if her struggling was just about to come to an end. This suggests that she was struggling against the cops holding her down and that the taser was used to subdue her.

But again, we don't know, you don't, I don't, no one but the people who were there that day. And anyone who's trying to claim this video as some kind of viable evidence for anything (other then obvious bias) has no idea what true, valid evidence is. i guess the possability exists that the cops were just a couple of bloated pussies who couldnt hold down a 120 lb woman. who knows. i would certainly like to see the entire video though.

Originally posted by GCG
Brutality is not the word for getting tasered....unless of course the cop repeatadly smacked her in the head.

Thge whole picture must be seen

lets not play a semantics game. "police brutality" and "excessive force" are general terms, and dont imply a particular degree of brutallity and force

Not to mention that it's far to early to say with any validity whether or not police brutality or cruel and unusual punishment actually took place simply from viewing this particular video, which you did in your intial post at the start of the thread and with the title of the thread.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not to mention that it's far to early to say with any validity whether or not police brutality or cruel and unusual punishment actually took place simply from viewing this particular video, which you did in your intial post at the start of the thread.

i see two cops holding down an unarmed woman who is on her back, on the ground. thats all i need to see. what more do you need?
and halfway decent trained cop would have had her face pinned to the pavement and that would have been the end of it. instead, they backed off of her and tasered her. like i said, ill accept the minute possibility that the cops were bloated pussies...but i will not bank on it.

Originally posted by PVS
lets not play a semantics game. "police brutality" and "excessive force" are general terms, and dont imply a particular degree of brutallity and force

Ok; so tell you are saying that that woman getting tasered and this pic are "general terms, and dont imply a particular degree of brutallity and force"

right ?

http://img69.exs.cx/img69/3653/protest6ap.jpg

oh so now we'll play the "STFU and be thankful you dont have to live here" game? well i guess we should all STFU and be thankful we dont live in afghanistan

So in other words you don't need to see the full story before making foolish and flawed assumptions about people and then throw it around as if it's some kind of fact. (In reference to your first paragraph in the initial post of the thread.) -

eyewittness accounts in the article. did you read the article?

here: *edit*

oh shit...just realised i DID post it....oops...its been a wacky day

Yes I did read it. What's your point? That a spokesperson for the group claims that there was no order to disperse and that it was a non violent protest? Yeah, I'm sure the appointed spokesperson for the group is really credible and unbiased in his views.

There are also claims that people were breaking cameras and refusing to obey officers, and even shoving officers. Eye witness accounts are all over the place here, they're no more valid that that bullshit video.

Originally posted by BackFire
****ing shit, if this teaches us one thing it's that dumbshit protestors need to keep their slimy hippy asses off of streets and blocking traffic. I have no sympathy for the idiots who do that sort of thing, a bus could plow through them for all I care, serves them right.

Plus, that video is heavily flawed and one sided (made obvious by the fact that it's being hosted from Michealmoore.com). It doesn't show the whole incident, just more propoghanda for hardcore liberals to eat up while spouting falacious arguments relating genocide to the Iraqi War and dimwitted puns on the term "land of the free". It isn't valid evidence for anything.

I'll hold of judgement untill someone releases a full unedited video showing the whole incident, not just what happened once the woman was on the ground.

****ing protestors.
Wow. Pretty much what I was thinking, only said. And I too caught the michaelmoore.com thing.

quite the expert sleuth you are fece. how did you ever catch that?
the name was so well hidden within the link. who would have thought that michaelmoore.com would actually be the website of Michael Moore!!!

really, do you do private detective work? because if so i must hire you

Originally posted by BackFire
Yes I did read it. What's your point? That a spokesperson for the group claims that there was no order to disperse and that it was a non violent protest? Yeah, I'm sure the appointed spokesperson for the group is really credible and unbiased in his views.

There are also claims that people were breaking cameras and refusing to obey officers, and even shoving officers. Eye witness accounts are all over the place here, they're no more valid that that bullshit video.

then i guess since most of all reported events are based on eyewittness accounts, then none are credible.............why pay attention to the news then?

Originally posted by PVS
quite the expert sleuth you are fece. how did you ever catch that?
the name was so well hidden within the link. who would have thought that michaelmoore.com would actually be the website of Michael Moore!!!

really, do you do private detective work? because if so i must hire you
I meant about immediately realizing that the film clip would be biased.

However, I do side work with Scooby and the gang.

Originally posted by PVS
then i guess since most of all reported events are based on eyewittness accounts, then none are credible.............why pay attention to the news then?

There are valid and invalid eyewitness accounts. A valid eyewitness account would more or less come from a third party who has nothing to gain/lose by telling the truth in the matter. That's not the case in this matter.

Why would anyone in their right mind listen to what the spokesperson for the group claiming brutality said? Obviously he's more likely to be biased and lie then a third party.

Also the fact that the eye witness accounts on this are all over the place kind renders them completely useless. One person says there was a police order to disperse, one person says there wasn't. One person says that the protest was non violent at all, another says it was. Both parties, the cops and the protestors, are going to give different sides of the story because both sides of something to lose, neither are very believable in this case.

I never dismissed eyewitness accounts as a whole, just in this particular case, they're unbelievably useless.

Originally posted by PVS
oh so now we'll play the "STFU and be thankful you dont have to live here" game? well i guess we should all STFU and be thankful we dont live in afghanistan

Play ? thats the second consecutive time you say play to me ;

and you didnt even reply to "general terms, and dont imply a particular degree of brutallity and force" .

So is there a difference in the Brutality or No ?

to answer your loaded question...no, there isnt. and yes there is.

there isnt because both fit the term

there is because one is more brutal and forceful


why ask?

Wow....nice clip.....

Well, i personally think the clip is very descriptive and not in the least biased. It DOESN'T MATTER that you don't see what happened before. it really really doesn't matter. The supervisor on duty said the worst thing one of the protestants did was shout at the cops and shove them...
So assuming the worst thing happened, the woman we see in the clip previously called them names and shoved them (though i'd sure love to see that woman shove those behemoths). Ok, so we put her on the ground, we do NOT use handcuffs, but we DO taser her........are you ****ing kidding me?
It doesn't MATTER what she did before. If she was restrained (by 3 cops), you use ****in handcuffs. You don't TASER her. That is NOT standard procedure.
Tell me three cops that had her on the ground couldn't put one pair of handcuffs on her....from what i see, they wanted to teach her a lesson.
You might say "but it MIGHT be procedure if they don't have handcuffs". That would be idiotic, but ok, i'll accept that. however:

1st COP THAT'S HOLDING HER DOWN:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/preacherofnothing/others/polbrutal1.jpg

2nd COP AFTER HER BEING TASERED, WALKING AWAY:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v442/preacherofnothing/others/polbrut2.jpg

The third cop was the one tasering her.....and i didn't see any pair of handcuffs on him indeed. He probably used them on the 68 year old woman that refused to walk away and as a consequence was not restrained by ****ING PEOPLE THAT ARE TRAINED TO RESTRAIN, but rather bitten by a police dog. Nice

~wickerman~

Wickerman makes many good points. Like he said, people may have an opinion as to what protesters may "deserve", and others may say, "well we didn't see what she did to "deserve" it, but that's why you folks aren't cops.

Cops are not in the position to evaluate and distribute punishment. It is their duty to arrest and restrain with the least amount of force necessary. As for the amount of force used on that woman (i.e. taser) it was totally unnecessary, she was prone on the ground.

For all of the yee-haa rednecks I suggest you watch an episode of cops and see how quickly 3 cops can take down a 250 pound drunken *******. A pathetically outta shape woman on the ground should be a much easier task.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Wickerman makes many good points. Like he said, people may have an opinion as to what protesters may "deserve", and others may say, "well we didn't see what she did to "deserve" it, but that's why you folks aren't cops.

Cops are not in the position to evaluate and distribute punishment. It is their duty to arrest and restrain with the least amount of force necessary. As for the amount of force used on that woman (i.e. taser) it was totally unnecessary, she was prone on the ground.

For all of the yee-haa rednecks I suggest you watch an episode of cops and see how quickly 3 cops can take down a 250 pound drunken *******. A pathetically outta shape woman on the ground should be a much easier task.

Exactly. It's not about politics, or anything. It's about those 3 ****in moron cops that should be thrown out of the Force for using that amount of force when not necessary.

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
Exactly. It's not about politics, or anything. It's about those 3 ****in moron cops that should be thrown out of the Force for using that amount of force when not necessary.

~wickerman~

i'm sure they were in a better position to judge than you were...

as for the clip itself being from michaelmoore.com...we all know how he likes to edit footage to give certain slants on things...i believe it was bowling for columbine when he made it look like he walked into a bank, opened an account and got given a gun...none of the footage showed any of the security checks done on him or the fact that the guns weren't even held in the bank and that someone had to drive to a secure holding to get it.

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm sure they were in a better position to judge than you were...

as for the clip itself being from michaelmoore.com...we all know how he likes to edit footage to give certain slants on things...i believe it was bowling for columbine when he made it look like he walked into a bank, opened an account and got given a gun...none of the footage showed any of the security checks done on him or the fact that the guns weren't even held in the bank and that someone had to drive to a secure holding to get it.

To judge whether to taser an unarmed woman that's lying on the ground and restrained instead of handcuffing her???

It can be from antibushforever.com as far as i'm concerned. It shows a woman on the ground that CAN be restrained, with handcuffs (look up if you don't believe me), but that instead is punished.

I don't know or care what michael moore edited out. The supervising officer on duty said that the worst thing was swearing and shoving policemen......not even hitting them. Now tell me this. You're a cop. You get cursed and shoved by an out-of-shape chick. You get her on the ground. Two more cops (large ones) also help you restrain her. Do you do:

A) Handcuff her
or
B) decide you're the judge, jury and executioner and punish her for shoving you and taser her?

Because if you choose B, you should be thrown out of the Force. For Christ's sake, aren't there psychology tests when people join the Academy so that they avoid this kind of things?

~wickerman~

people are so desperate to deny it that they will insinuate editing.

what...special effects were used? did ILM get involved and edit out the 9mm she was holding?

Originally posted by PVS
people are so desperate to deny it that they will insinuate editing.

what...special effects were used? did ILM get involved and edit out the 9mm she was holding?

and people like you will always resort to petty insults when they run out of ammo

whats new?



there you go...physical abuse...yet it was non violent...since when is shoving people a form of non violent protest

since when has grabbing cameras from journalists and smashing them to bits been a form of non violent protest



not to mention there were how many demonstrators compared to police?


look at the attached pic from the same demo...loads of excessive force being used here eh?



or how about this quote from another source covering the demo



or this



never quite black and white now is it?http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/images/0821-01.jpg

Originally posted by jaden101
and people like you will always resort to petty insults when they run out of ammo

whats new?

and can you please point out the insult? or are you now just resorting to flatout lies?

and you continue to argue a point which was thwarted. it goes against a cops duty to seek revenge and punish people. but hey, maybe if a failed point is repeated enough, it will become a valid point.

But once a person is subdued, any further force is EXCESSIVE.

Originally posted by PVS
and can you please point out the insult? or are you now just resorting to flatout lies?

and you continue to argue a point which was thwarted. it goes against a cops duty to seek revenge and punish people. but hey, maybe if a failed point is repeated enough, it will become a valid point.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
But once a person is subdued, any further force is EXCESSIVE.
You are both correct, but it's what some cops do. Not just to protesters who are being pains-in-the-neck, but to other perpetrators.

*edit*

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm sure they were in a better position to judge than you were...

as for the clip itself being from michaelmoore.com...we all know how he likes to edit footage to give certain slants on things...

I tend to be very dismissive to whatever that site claims. But there are times I will give him the benefit of the doubt. This kind of cases is what I like to call "Rodney King Videos". We all see the aftermath never the begining.

Originally posted by WindDancer
I tend to be very dismissive to whatever that site claims. But there are times I will give him the benefit of the doubt. This kind of cases is what I like to call "Rodney King Videos". We all see the aftermath never the begining.

Again........it..........does.............not...............matter. The supervising officer on duty said the worst that happened were cursings and shoving. But she might as well have SHOT one of the officers. As long as she was on the ground, restrained by 3 police officers, two of which had handcuffs, there was NO reason and NO excuse for getting off her and tasering her other than a swift "punishment". And THAT is wrong.

~wickerman~

yes, we all see the cops breaking the law and abusing their power, but they never show us WHY they are breaking the law and abusing their power....oh wait....thats irrelivent.

Originally posted by PVS
yes, we all see the cops breaking the law and abusing their power, but they never show us WHY they are breaking the law and abusing their power....oh wait....thats irrelivent.

I think it's because us liberals dream differently

~wickerman~

we'll include the fact that in that one sentence you called me a liar...other words you've used to describe people who dont your opinion in this thread have been "sad" and "desperate"...i think they both qualify as insults

Originally posted by PVS
yes, we all see the cops breaking the law and abusing their power, but they never show us WHY they are breaking the law and abusing their power....oh wait....thats irrelivent.

Police abuse their power many times and everywhere.

Police are allowed to use taser-guns to subdue an unwilling individual who fails to comply with orders however Police departments should vigilantly guard against the abusive use of Taser guns, just as they
should guard against abuse of any kind.

Abuse or not, i would like to see the whole video to add more. I say this cause that woman could have just kicked the police officer

uts ultimatly Policies limiting the use of Taser guns should be strictly enforced, so that officers are held accountable if they resort to a Taser gun when safer and less painful methods can safely be used to obtain an offender's compliance.

Originally posted by GCG
Abuse or not, i would like to see the whole video to add more. I say this cause that woman could have just kicked the police officer


Even if she did kick an officer, there are three of them right there, there is no need to bring out the taser, and once again, it is a woman in poor physical shape that can't be over 130 pounds lying prone on the ground.

What would you have done if you were a cop and could not manage to subdue her ?

What would you have done if you and another Cop could not manage to subdue her ?

Originally posted by Wickerman
Again........it..........does.............not...............matter. The supervising officer on duty said the worst that happened were cursings and shoving. But she might as well have SHOT one of the officers. As long as she was on the ground, restrained by 3 police officers, two of which had handcuffs, there was NO reason and NO excuse for getting off her and tasering her other than a swift "punishment". And THAT is wrong.

~wickerman~


Cops are allowed to use tasers on people who refuse to comply with their orders.

As I said, at the beginning of the video you can see her kicking and flailing about just ever so slightly, this would suggest that she was physically resisting the officers up until the point the camera turned on, as such, the taser was allowed to be used.

You may not like it, but that's how it is. Also, what happened prior to the video is extremely relevant, because then we would be able to see if she was indeed actually physically resisting the officers or not.

Though I think it's pretty obvious that she was.

almost missed this

since when is stopping a crowd of people battering a camera man been an act of revenge?

Here is 'baldy' again dicharging his taser.

Notice the leg of the protestor who was gonna kick him and the woman who got tased being escorted away.

Originally posted by GCG
Here is 'baldy' again dicharging his taser.

Notice the leg of the protestor who was gonna kick him and the woman who got tased being escorted away.

in that particular situation, it was a justified use of the taser.

and jaden, please quit belly aching. i doubt my heart can take any more sorrow and guilt crybaby if you cant quote me calling you names, then you have no case buddy.

Oh !

BTW, New Tasers have a wire that allows you to insert in a computer so that it tells you how many times its been used. If checked regularly, it could deter Police from abusing it.

did i say you were calling me names...no...i said you resort to petty insults in general when people dont agree with you...then kharmadog adds a bit...then you add a bit...until it becomes a thread full of insults and a total waste of a debate

it doesn't take muc searching to find you calling someone a "sad waste of a life" or "fanatical" , "delusional"

Originally posted by GCG
What would you have done if you were a cop and could not manage to subdue her ?

What would you have done if you and another Cop could not manage to subdue her ?

Therein' lies the rub. A police officer is trained to immobilize 200 pound drunken and abbusive men. IF they were trained properly, and IF they showed correct judgement, one officer should have been enough to subdue her, two more than enough.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/230805utahrave.htm

more police brutality

Originally posted by GCG

What would you have done if you were a cop and could not manage to subdue her ?


i would realise that i was worthless as an officer and quit the force
since i was too weak to take down a 120lb lady who was already on the ground.

Originally posted by GCG

What would you have done if you and another Cop could not manage to subdue her ?

same as the first response, but i would also do my best to convince him to quit the force as well, since we were both too weak to take down a 120lb lady. what good is that?

Originally posted by GCG

I have seen situations on COPS (that you watch) and similar genre that took up to 7 Police Officers to subdue a drunken 200 pound, unabiding, procrastinator to follow a police order ! ! !

if i was police chief i would be handing out 7 pink slips

Originally posted by PVS
I would realise that i was worthless as an officer and quit the force
since i was too weak to take down a 120lb lady who was already on the ground.


same as the first response, but i would also do my best to convince him to quit the force as well, since we were both too weak to take down a 120lb lady. what good is that?

Thank you; But Police always act in pairs. Its not a case of being a worthelss wuss with a pansy for a side-kick.

Originally posted by GCG
OH COME ON !

1 on 1 is anyone's bet !

You claim that 1 Police Officer is trained to subdue single handedly a drunkard ? I have to disagree with you there as the Police operate in a team and they are ALWAYS warned to never tackle situations alone. There is always a 'back-up buddy'

I disagree, because as a few members here know, I received training as a police officer, which I no longer can do because of losing the sight in my right eye, officers ARE trained to be able to physically restrain people who have physical or tactical (i.e. weapon or knife) superiority.

Also, in many U.S. cities the police work in partners, not so in all cities or all countries, police are trained to be able to handle such a situation on their own and are not always dependant on back-up. There is NOT always a 'back-up buddy'



Originally posted by GCG
What would you have done if you were a cop and could not manage to subdue her ?

If, as a police officer, I was unable to restrain a 120-130 pound physically out of shape woman I would resign. A simple wrist lock could have subdued her, or since she was already on the ground, perhaps just applying handcuffs.

Originally posted by GCG
What would you have done if you and another Cop could not manage to subdue her ?

Once again I would resign, because that would mean that I am incapable of doing the job as is my partner. That woman was not physically capable of dominating or dictating the situation. You do realize that officers have been arresting people and resolving situations before the taser gun was invented don't you?

Originally posted by GCG
I have seen situations on COPS (that you watch) and similar genre that took up to 7 Police Officers to subdue a drunken 200 pound, unabiding, procrastinator to follow a police order ! ! !

Actually I don't watch COPS much at all, if you read my post correctly I used it as a 'tongue-in-cheek' example. I am sure 7 officers taking down one offender is not the norm, but if your point is that it may take a few extra cops to arrest someone who is completely out of control, then your argument here is moot because that woman was nowhere near a level of hostility that would require such brute and shocking force.

Originally posted by GCG
Thank you; But Police always act in pairs. Its not a case of being a worthelss wuss with a pansy for a side-kick.

then how about: a useless weakling who puts himself, his partner, co-workers, and the general public in danger by wearing a badge when he clearly isnt fit to.

Originally posted by GCG
Thank you; But Police always act in pairs. Its not a case of being a worthelss wuss with a pansy for a side-kick.

I am sorry to inform you, but though police may ALWAYS act in pairs in the vicinity that you reside in, that is more an exception than a rule. If an officer can waite, or has the opportunity to waite for back-up he will. But that's only if he can waite or has the opportunity to waite, otherwise he is on his own.

As for crowd control, a single officer should be expected to be able to handle himself against, as I have said many time, a protester of the physical strength and condition of the person in the tape. If more than one officer is required, then fine, but a taser gun is wayyyyyy over the top, especially, once again as I have said many times before, since she is ALREADY in a prone position.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I disagree, because as a few members here know, I received training as a police officer, which I no longer can do because of losing the sight in my right eye, officers ARE trained to be able to physically restrain people who have physical or tactical (i.e. weapon or knife) superiority.

Also, in many U.S. cities the police work in partners, not so in all cities or all countries, police are trained to be able to handle such a situation on their own and are not always dependant on back-up. There is NOT always a 'back-up buddy'

A police officer needs back-up not only for his own protection, but also to have a second opnion on the situation and to give a second account to the event/s in question.

Its no surprise that they are trained for 1-on-1 situations, yet in most cases, i am sure you will agree, Police Officers pile-up on scuffles to resolve it Quickly and Effectively.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
If, as a police officer, I was unable to restrain a 120-130 pound physically out of shape woman I would resign. A simple wrist lock could have subdued her, or since she was already on the ground, perhaps just applying handcuffs.

and

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Once again I would resign, because that would mean that I am incapable of doing the job as is my partner. That woman was not physically capable of dominating or dictating the situation.

So you would automatically resign without attempting to defend your actions ?

Originally posted by KharmaDog

You do realize that officers have been arresting people and resolving situations before the taser gun was invented don't you?

Yes I do ; you do realize that it took a heartbeat to get that woman to roll over instead of using physical force that could break her arm or wrist ?

As a police officer, you claim to have been, you also do realize that using wrist locks and arm locks may cause inflammations, fractures and breakages to bone and ligament IF the arrested person keeps wriggling around when under the the said restraints ?

These protestors had clearly no intention to disperse and/or to abide to Police Instructions so they will keep resisting arrest until hand-cuffed and led away.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Actually I don't watch COPS much at all, if you read my post correctly I used it as a 'tongue-in-cheek' example.

You said you watch COPS ; dont back track away from it. You watch it, then you watch it. Am i supposed to subscibe to 'tongue-in-cheek' examples ?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I am sure 7 officers taking down one offender is not the norm, but if your point is that it may take a few extra cops to arrest someone who is completely out of control, then your argument here is moot because that woman was nowhere near a level of hostility that would require such brute and shocking force.

You are mixing the scenarios.

It ultimatly, as previously mentioned, took 7 officers to arrest a man. My argumant is not moot cause i am responding to your post in which you say:
Originally posted by KharmaDog
A police officer is trained to immobilize 200 pound drunken and abbusive men.

You brought the 1-on-1 into this thread

Lets wait and see that KDKA-TV footage which as per This Source

"After she is subdued by two officers who hold her hands behind her back, a third officer approaches and uses his Taser on the woman. She screams in pain."

did you read that?

yes, im sure you did

well read it again

did you watch the video you linked ?

yes, im sure you did

slow-mo it ; you can see her pulling the shirt of the officer on the ground

ok, are you trying to confuse?
you posted what i assumed to be an objective commentary of the video.
according to that, she was fully subdued. thats what usually happens when your hands are pinned behind your back.

Shed light on the incident not confuse , funny.

The commentary of the video claims that De'Anna Caligiuri, 23, of Bloomfield is seen struggling with as many as 5 police officers. Therfore we need more pink slips to be handed out cause apparently some here think its reltively easy to arrest this kind of protestor.

Secondly, dont believe everything written. Read all the articles from all the sources and make your mind up.

I suspect that in that KDKA-TV footage, we could be seeing De'Anna Caligiuri refusing to obey police orders, resisting arrest, a struggle with 5 officers and then in that footage you posted, her still struggling on the ground ; you can see her pulling the officer's shirt while she is 'subdued'.

If you sympathize with De'Anna Caligiuri, why dont you try ask her for the full video at her e-mail on [email protected]

My bet is that she was only managed to be subdued after being tasered, cause apparently, Pittsburgh police are a bunch of wimps !

yeah she looked a real threat to every one. and she pulled on his shirt, hell i'm surprised they didn't just chin the b*tch right then and there, dont want her to ruffle his clothes. bet he ironed then that morning and everything

thats not the point tabby ; knocking the hat off a policeman is enough ground for arrest.

Its the principle.

She behaved like an ass and got treated like one.

There were also reports of a 4 year-old that got pepper-sprayed. Now who in the right frame of mind would take his/her 4 year-old to a protest ?

Originally posted by GCG
thats not the point tabby ; knocking the hat off a policeman is enough ground for arrest.

Its the principle.

She behaved like an ass and got treated like one.

There were also reports of a 4 year-old that got pepper-sprayed. Now who in the right frame of mind would take his/her 4 year-old to a protest ?

But seriously now, this discussion is getting out of hand. The problem is that they had the means to permanently restrain her, as per handcuffs. They didn't. They waited for the 3rd cop to walk over and punish her. They BOTH had handcuffs. While holding her down, she could still wiggle around and everything......and even OMG pull on shirts icon5 . If they would've put handcuffs on, it would've been solved. They're supposed to restrain her, and don't tell me a pair of handcuffs and then tossing her in a police car wouldn't mean the 120 lb woman is restrained

~wickerman~

Originally posted by GCG
If you sympathize with De'Anna Caligiuri, why dont you try ask her for the full video at her e-mail on [email protected]

actually, if you have been paying attention to what i've been saying, i dont sympathise with her at all. in fact, i'm pretty sure i called a stupid a$$hole.
but my lack of sympathy toward her does not aleave my scrutiny of the actions of those officers. in fact, as i said, and as logic dictates, its irrelivent.

Originally posted by GCG
My bet is that she was only managed to be subdued after being tasered, cause apparently, Pittsburgh police are a bunch of wimps !

if that was sarcasm: if you cant see the reality that when your hands are pinned behind your back, you cant do shit anymore, then i guess there's no further debate on this. perhaps she was a contortionist?

if that was a genuine statement: then there are a couple of officers who should be promply fired. maybe they would be better fit for mall security.

Originally posted by PVS
actually, if you have been paying attention to what i've been saying, i dont sympathise with her at all. in fact, i'm pretty sure i called a stupid a$$hole.
but my lack of sympathy toward her does not aleave my scrutiny of the actions of those officers. in fact, as i said, and as logic dictates, its irrelivent.

I agree 100%

Originally posted by PVS

if that was sarcasm: if you cant see the reality that when your hands are pinned behind your back, you cant do shit anymore, then i guess there's no further debate on this. perhaps she was a contortionist?

if that was a genuine statement: then there are a couple of officers who should be promply fired. maybe they would be better fit for mall security.

Once again, I agree 100%.

Its easy to comment on the aftermath as we lounge in front of our PCs.

Had it been easy to arrest that woman, a taser would not have been used.

In all that hustle, with a lot of actions and reactions going on all at once before a scenario of protestors dressed in black with face covered marred by violence, and with the General Public in direct threat of harm's way, the police deemed it a situation fit for telescopic batons and tasers.

With such an event presented before their eyes, a detailed assesment cannot be made at the expense of the General Public ; time was foresaken. The job had to be done.

While I cannot convince you my POV and respecting your opinions, I must say that this was an interisting topic.

GCG, no matter what you say--no matter what the evidence says--the headlines running through their minds will be "PRO-WAR BUSH SUPPORTERS UNJUSTLY TASER PEACEFUL PROTESTORS" and "DOES BUSH HAVE BROWN SHORTS?"

and that's why they're idiots.

calling names to anyone who disagrees...genius

Sloppy reading and logic on your part, apparantly.

If they say something is something despite evidence of the contrary, they're morons, simple as that.

Never said anything about people who disagree being idiots.

Originally posted by PVS
calling names to anyone who disagrees...genius
Indirectly saying that people are unintelligent while criticizing people who are name-calling...har.

oh so you didnt mean that anyone who disagrees is an idiot.
you meant that anyone who feceman's generalising label pertained to...
which is....anyone who disagrees.

No, it's anyone who denies evidence because of their own ideals, regaurdless of whether or not it is valid or not.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Indirectly saying that people are unintelligent while criticizing people who are name-calling...har.

anyone who would say that is a tool. wow, you know what? you're right! this is quite fun!

Originally posted by PVS
anyone who would say that is a tool. wow, you know what? you're right! this is quite fun!
You just keep proving me right in everything you post. Keep it up!

Originally posted by BackFire
No, it's anyone who denies evidence because of their own ideals, regaurdless of whether or not it is valid or not.

and if you dont see the 2 sides to that coin, i believe you are doing just that. what of the objective accounts of the entire incident, posted by GCG, which states that her hands were pinned behind her back by two officers, before she was released and the taser was used. to use force in such a manner after she was pinned was against the law. cops get fired for that kind of behavior.

and yea, the lady was an a$$hole. i dont see with liberal blinders. she was clearly a lunatic. but she was a restrained lunatic. the cops job was to then handcuff her, not carry out vigilante justice.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You just keep proving me right in everything you post. Keep it up!

ok dude, keep it up with your imaginary "PWNINGS".
whatever helps you out.

Originally posted by PVS
ok dude, keep it up with your imaginary "PWNINGS".
whatever helps you out.
You just keep on acting like yourself, then.

Originally posted by FeceMan
GCG, no matter what you say--no matter what the evidence says--the headlines running through their minds will be "PRO-WAR BUSH SUPPORTERS UNJUSTLY TASER PEACEFUL PROTESTORS" and "DOES BUSH HAVE BROWN SHORTS?"

My comment was based on this statement, people who are desperately trying to relate the occurance with pro bush/anti bush statements. I wasn't referencing anything about the actual incident, seeing as I've already said that no one participating in this thread actually knows with any validity what actually happened to cause the tasering.

And if it's against the law, then the cops will get fired most definately, no big deal.

Originally posted by FeceMan
You just keep on acting like yourself, then.
running on fumes i see...

Originally posted by BackFire
My comment was based on this statement, people who are desperately trying to relate the occurance with pro bush/anti bush statements.

the case with everything. im glad you can see fault on both sides though. thats a rare gift

Originally posted by FeceMan
And if it's against the law, then the cops will get fired most definately, no big deal.

well, even if they deserve to get fired, if the public doesnt make a stink about it, they wont.

Originally posted by PVS
running on fumes i see...
More proof.

Originally posted by PVS
when a person is restrained...they are restrained.
a cop has no right to carry out physical punishment on you.
they had her down, then got up off of her to shock her.
cruel and unusual punishment. what happened previous is irrelevant.
try again

If it where up to me these anti-war protesters would be shot for treason.And I am not being funny that is my honest opinion.

Originally posted by GCG
Its easy to comment on the aftermath as we lounge in front of our PCs.

Had it been easy to arrest that woman, a taser would not have been used.

In all that hustle, with a lot of actions and reactions going on all at once before a scenario of protestors dressed in black with face covered marred by violence, and with the General Public in direct threat of harm's way, the police deemed it a situation fit for telescopic batons and tasers.

With such an event presented before their eyes, a detailed assesment cannot be made at the expense of the General Public ; time was foresaken. The job had to be done.

While I cannot convince you my POV and respecting your opinions, I must say that this was an interisting topic.

So....they're surrounded by protesters dressed in black with face covered marred by violence, and with the General Public in direct threat of harm's way. I see. Soooo......that's why there's initially 3 cops subduing ONE SINGLE SMALL WOMAN. Yes....makes incredible sense. The use of the taser was inappropriate, they got filmed while doing it, they should get kicked out of the force.

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
If it where up to me these anti-war protesters would be shot for treason.And I am not being funny that is my honest opinion.

perhaps you should go to china and north korea and renounce your citizenship? your ideals would be welcome there with open arms.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
If it where up to me these anti-war protesters would be shot for treason.And I am not being funny that is my honest opinion.

Man.......i would PAY to see you try to survive a totalitarian regime

~wickerman~

They would yes but the living isnt to good over there.

Originally posted by Wickerman
Man.......i would PAY to see you try to survive a totalitarian regime

~wickerman~

I would just agree with whatever the regiime said.

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
but the living isnt to good over there.

And that has nothing to do with the regime itself does it?

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
I would just agree with whatever the regiime said.

that would be a wise move.
but lets be honest. do you really wish for such a regime where
anyone who protests it is shot through the back of the head or hung on the spot?

Originally posted by Wickerman
And that has nothing to do with the regime itself does it?

~wickerman~

no not at all

in fact, the poor living conditions are the result of liberals secretly sabotaging the system. however, they will soon be brought to justice.

Originally posted by PVS
that would be a wise move.
but lets be honest. do you really wish for such a regime where
anyone who protests it is shot through the back of the head or hung on the spot?

Ofcourse not just anti-war protestors and some others.......maybe......

Originally posted by PVS
no not at all

in fact, the poor living conditions are the result of liberals secretly sabotaging the system. however, they will soon be brought to justice.

Seriously though. Kids like this don't really get that a totalitarian regime doesn't just mean MENTALITY. It means hard cold fact. It means being tossed in jail if you complain to your neighbour that your newborn baby's too cold because you don't get enough heat in your appartment, etc. etc. No, i'm not exaggerating.

but yes......the dastardly liberals MUST DIEEEEEEEEEEEEE

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Wickerman
Seriously though. Kids like this don't really get that a totalitarian regime doesn't just mean MENTALITY. It means hard cold fact. It means being tossed in jail if you complain to your neighbour that your newborn baby's too cold because you don't get enough heat in your appartment, etc. etc. No, i'm not exaggerating.

but yes......the dastardly liberals MUST DIEEEEEEEEEEEEE

~wickerman~

Not all totalitarian regime's are bad and I never said I wanted one I said protestors as in people who hold marches and dress up as trees and things,I like Democracy.

Originally posted by Wickerman
So....they're surrounded by protesters dressed in black with face covered marred by violence, and with the General Public in direct threat of harm's way. I see. Soooo......that's why there's initially 3 cops subduing ONE SINGLE SMALL WOMAN. Yes....makes incredible sense. The use of the taser was inappropriate, they got filmed while doing it, they should get kicked out of the force.

~wickerman~

No notion on your sarcastic remarks.

Read my post again. You completly misunderstood what im saying
unless of course you wanted to interpret it that way

Originally posted by GCG
No notion on your sarcastic remarks.

Read my post again. You completly misunderstood what im saying
unless of course you wanted to interpret it that way

I assure you that what i meant was that they were crappy cops. They have TESTS of how they handle "under pressure" operations. And if they DID get freaked out by having to do their duty and take out the hooded villains, they chose the wrong thing in having 3 damn cops restrain one single woman......and not even restrain her properly.

~wickerman~

Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
Not all totalitarian regime's are bad and I never said I wanted one I said protestors as in people who hold marches and dress up as trees and things,I like Democracy.

How could you promote Democracy with one hand, while shooting these anti-war protestors for 'treason' with the other ?

Doesnt anyone have the chance to re-habilitate IF they commited a crime ?

The issue here is not whether or not the woman deserved it. Nor is it to do with what happened before.I'm sure the coppers in america could handle situations like that quite adequately before they got tasers. They have clearly used it wrongly in this clip. If she's assaulted them and swore/spat or whatever then she's asking to get nicked. But force should be proportionate.

You first try and use your brain and powers of persuasion
if tht doesn't work
Then you try the threat of force
that doesn't work
you use your hands and try to restrain and cuff em
that doesn't work
same as before but more officers if possible(inthis case this was enough as we saw)
that don't work
Fists/kicks/baton strikes
that ain't working
more officers doing all of that
next
CS spray (if you have it)
all that doesn't work(and it would have to be a raging crack addict with excited delerium and thus extreme strength as well as a bunch of very weak, pussy officers for it not to), then taser could be maybe used. The taser was invented as a long range weapon to combat armed assailants with non firearm weaponry, the sort that keeps you at long range like a sword or axe etc or as a non-lethal alternative to using firearms(but personally if they got firearms, firearms should be used on em).

Police should be well capable of getting stuck in and using their hands and combat skills against a normal sized person like that. The american police usually are from what I've seen on TV. The ones on the clip were a bit silly in my humble opinion.

Police are officers of the public trust, they are your servants paid by your tax dollars. If they assault you, you should be able to assault them. Frankly, if a cop ever tried beating on me (again), i'd probably use a pressure point to break his hip and then file a complaint against the department. I don't want to have a taser induced epileptic seizure or extensive bridgework, or brain damage, or a funeral just cause Bush wants to instill fear in the populace or cause some cop needs another person to suffer so he can ejaculate.

A tazer seems a little harsh, no? I mean, if the officer was that close to her, why not just grab her arms and handcuff her?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3CdNgoC0cE&eurl=

UCLA student punished with taser for endangering the lives of police officers by....not standing up. if this isnt blatant evidence of a nonlethal weapon being used for torture i dont know what is.

a taser is a nonlethal means of disabling a suspect, for the safety of an officer. not "do as i say, when i say it, or you suffer".

:edit: not to mention they already had him on the ground. at that point he should have been cuffed and brought in. there really is no excuse for this shit. nobody was in danger, especially those power tripping scumbags

whats next? "roll over!!!! bark like a dog!!!! I SAID BARK LIKE A DOG!!!!" *ZAP*

Videos are best when they have accompanying news reports.

I'm just wondering: why do you insist on posting all of this? So we know that nonlethal weaponry can be used for torture? Because anyone with half a brain already realizes this.

"Here's your Patriot Act!"

*Rolls eyes.*

Originally posted by FeceMan
Videos are best when they have accompanying news reports.

I'm just wondering: why do you insist on posting all of this? So we know that nonlethal weaponry can be used for torture? Because anyone with half a brain already realizes this.

hmmm...if its so insignificant than why did you just waste 20 seconds of your life posting that? you'll never get that time back. was it worth it?

:edit: does the presence of an anchorman make it any more or less valid? are you suggesting this was staged? its all pretty simple to follow imho

Originally posted by PVS
hmmm...if its so insignificant than why did you just waste 20 seconds of your life posting that? you'll never get that time back. was it worth it?
Simply because the obvious has been stated doesn't mean that it isn't conducive to discussion.

No, I'm wondering what the entire incident was about.

he was in the library without an i.d. card. whatever the case: lets say he ran around the place with his pecker hanging out screaming "WORSHIP THE GOLDEN SNAKE!!!". does it matter? the police were in control of the situation, the 'suspect' was subdued, and they proceeded to use their tasers as a punishment device.

I'm slightly amused by the self-righteous indignation of the students who were so outraged that they refused to do anything.

what should they have done? assault police officers?

Originally posted by PVS
what should they have done? assault police officers?
When protesting for civil rights, people would protect others from police brutality by using their bodies to protect the victims.

Without any more of the video to look at, the video doesn't mean anything. And non-violent protest just means that they weren't throwing things at the police. It doesn't mean they weren't shoving, being disorderly or being uncooperative. You can't tell anything from it. And I don't see anything in the news article to make me think the police did anything wrong, either.

In short, you can gather virtually no information at all from that.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Without any more of the video to look at, the video doesn't mean anything. And non-violent protest just means that they weren't throwing things at the police. It doesn't mean they weren't shoving, being disorderly or being uncooperative. You can't tell anything from it. And I don't see anything in the news article to make me think the police did anything wrong, either.

In short, you can gather virtually no information at all from that.

yeah, i should have started a new thread. please view the UCLA student video a few posts up.

Originally posted by FeceMan
When protesting for civil rights, people would protect others from police brutality by using their bodies to protect the victims.

yeah, thats a criminal offense, ya know?

Originally posted by PVS
yeah, thats a criminal offense, ya know?
Your point being?

point being that they would do no good by causing a riot.
no good for the victim and no good for them. in fact such an occurance
would overshadow any police brutallity, wouldnt it?

Originally posted by PVS
point being that they would do no good by causing a riot.
no good for the victim and no good for them. in fact such an occurance
would overshadow any police brutallity, wouldnt it?
Were they so outraged, they should have been willing to suffer for their cause.

EDIT: Look at them--they stand there like cattle. They will put on a show of self-righteous indignance but wouldn't dare to intervene.

and so they suffered by having to helplessly witness it, rather than help justify those officers' actions or at least overshadow them.

Originally posted by PVS
and so they suffered by having to helplessly witness it, rather than help justify those officers' actions or at least overshadow them.
It was not clear thinking that stayed their hands but cowardice.

"Here's your Patriot Act." Pathetic. For that alone I have less sympathy for him.

Originally posted by FeceMan
It was not clear thinking that stayed their hands but cowardice.

"Here's your Patriot Act." Pathetic. For that alone I have less sympathy for him.

whether or not he was an ******* is irrelevant. please dont switch the topic.
in fact, i think you're an ******* but i would readily testify on your behalf in such a case if you were assaulted

Originally posted by PVS
whether or not he was an ******* is irrelevant. please dont switch the topic.
in fact, i think you're an ******* but i would readily testify on your behalf in such a case if you were assaulted
I'm neither switching the topic nor am I condoning the police officer's actions.

oh ok then.

Originally posted by PVS
yeah, i should have started a new thread. please view the UCLA student video a few posts up.
That video didn't tell me anything, either. Without seeing what ACTUALLY happened you don't know... what happened.

Originally posted by Kinneary
That video didn't tell me anything, either. Without seeing what ACTUALLY happened you don't know... what happened.

its clear as day what was happening. dont be so obtuse.
the kid refused to stand up and they tased him. its clear from what the cops said.
"stand up! stand up or you're gonna get tased again..."

do you really need peter jennings to walk you through that?

They will fall just like the lottery. We never benefit from their services...we just help them grow.

But we didn't see what happened. Why were the cops doing the ID checks? How quickly did they use the taser? Did they try more peaceful means of convicing him to leave? How long did it take him to respond when they asked him to leave? Did he push an officer or get in an officer's face before being tasered?

All I saw on that tape was some kid shouting about the patriot act in pain.

Originally posted by redcaped
They will fall just like the lottery. We never benefit from their services...we just help them grow.

um...>WHAT?

apparently, some people need to try and go against what is right infront of their faces. I actually don't understand what we're debating about. The cops should not use the taser unless they have too. It's their job to detain a suspect, not punish them. Period. An officer should be able to handle a college student, especially with all the cops that were there. The student had the right to not want to get up. Who the f*** are the cops to punish him for making a nonviolent choice. Nothing further need be said.

Originally posted by Kinneary
But we didn't see what happened. Why were the cops doing the ID checks? How quickly did they use the taser? Did they try more peaceful means of convicing him to leave? How long did it take him to respond when they asked him to leave? Did he push an officer or get in an officer's face before being tasered?

All I saw on that tape was some kid shouting about the patriot act in pain.

*sigh* the cop clearly ordered the kid to stand up or he would get tased. that renders the 'why's' irrelevant. 2 times you can clearly see that the kid was assaulting nobody and got hit simply for not getting up.

anyway it doesnt matter. he was on the ground and if the cops deemed him a threat they would(should) have proceeded to cuff him. now, if he had resisted and THEN got tased that would be another issue entirely (although imho too excessive none the less)

its spelled out clearly in what the cop said. you can choose to ignore it if you wish, or dwell on the irelevant, but the fact stands: cops threatened to use the taser is the kid didnt obey an order to stand up (very odd and inappropriate in an apprehension), the kid refused, and they hit him like 6 times

Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
apparently, some people need to try and go against what is right infront of their faces. I actually don't understand what we're debating about. The cops should not use the taser unless they have too. It's their job to detain a suspect, not punish them. Period. An officer should be able to handle a college student, especially with all the cops that were there. The student had the right to not want to get up. Who the f*** are the cops to punish him for making a nonviolent choice. Nothing further need be said.

...well....yeah...you're right

in the least they may have had the right to arrest him. since he was already on the ground the next step would be to get him face down and cuff him...but they told him to stand up...what kind of a cop(s) who feel threatened tell the potential assaulter to stand up?

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l77/kelsie_tigs1/6dc777e3.jpg
It's difficult not to fall out my chair laughing at this.

Originally posted by FeceMan
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l77/kelsie_tigs1/6dc777e3.jpg
It's difficult not to fall out my chair laughing at this.


Dude I can see the clip around your waist in the picture how are you going to fall out of your chair with that on?

http://img317.imageshack.us/img317/8951/rdyumigkkcjhcj2pcguhrz45jhs6hbwbkx6.gif

Originally posted by PVS
*sigh* the cop clearly ordered the kid to stand up or he would get tased. that renders the 'why's' irrelevant. 2 times you can clearly see that the kid was assaulting nobody and got hit simply for not getting up.

anyway it doesnt matter. he was on the ground and if the cops deemed him a threat they would(should) have proceeded to cuff him. now, if he had resisted and THEN got tased that would be another issue entirely (although imho too excessive none the less)

its spelled out clearly in what the cop said. you can choose to ignore it if you wish, or dwell on the irelevant, but the fact stands: cops threatened to use the taser is the kid didnt obey an order to stand up (very odd and inappropriate in an apprehension), the kid refused, and they hit him like 6 times
And without any background whatsoever, you can't tell ANYTHING from what happened. Seriously, I'm not some police nut who loves to see people get tasered, and I'm not waiting for the government to take over the world. I'm just not going to pass judgement on it until I know what actually happened.

And there seems to be some confusion here. A police officer does not have to believe his life is in danger in order to use a taser. If the kid was getting in the cops face, spitting, yelling, or being absolutely uncooperative to begin with, then they are absolutely and totally justified in using the taser. They simply ARE. But I don't know if he was. And you don't know if he wasn't. You can't tell anything from this video. You can't argue that what they did was justified or not justified, simple as that.

ok fine, lets just assume that ILM made this and its all fiction.
let us assume that in this fictional story, some pissed off hippie with
no id card refused to leave the aclu library. let us then say that upon ordered
to leave he sits on the ground and refuses to get up. rather than cuff him and
take him into custody they order him to stand up or be tased. he refuses and ramains seated and they tase him.

now that you have just been run through this purely fictional story, i ask you:
in a real world scenario, with those events, and knowing there was no exhibited threat to those officers, and knowing the standard procedures of apprehension (we all watched 'cops'), were those cops abusing power and was that not hypothetically police brutality.

this isnt a trap, im not trying to trick you into agreeing that the video is 100% accurate. i just want to know your opinion on the matter, assuming that is the matter. then we are addressing the issue.

I agree that is not appropriate.

Originally posted by PVS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3CdNgoC0cE&eurl=

UCLA student punished with taser for endangering the lives of police officers by....not standing up. if this isnt blatant evidence of a nonlethal weapon being used for torture i dont know what is.

a taser is a nonlethal means of disabling a suspect, for the safety of an officer. not "do as i say, when i say it, or you suffer".

:edit: not to mention they already had him on the ground. at that point he should have been cuffed and brought in. there really is no excuse for this shit. nobody was in danger, especially those power tripping scumbags

whats next? "roll over!!!! bark like a dog!!!! I SAID BARK LIKE A DOG!!!!" *ZAP*

I can't get youtube to come up at work. I'm not sure about this particular incident, but I hope this sparks UCLA to beat USC in a couple of weeks and maybe sneak Florida into the National Championship picture. Did the cop go to USC, maybe? Okay, bye now.

Originally posted by Kinneary
And there seems to be some confusion here. A police officer does not have to believe his life is in danger in order to use a taser. If the kid was getting in the cops face, spitting, yelling, or being absolutely uncooperative to begin with, then they are absolutely and totally justified in using the taser. They simply ARE. But I don't know if he was. And you don't know if he wasn't. You can't tell anything from this video. You can't argue that what they did was justified or not justified, simple as that.

a police officer must only use the taser to keep the situation from threatening him. dont ommit words to imply that they can use it whenever they just dont get their way or when someone gets upity. yelling would not be probably cause AT ALL. resisting arrest would be.

the line "stand up or we're going to tase you again". not "dont spit on me or we're going to tase you", not "stop resisting arrest or we're going to tase you". that is why i believe the events unfolded as a case of police brutality

Originally posted by Kinneary
I agree that is not appropriate.

thank you. i guess if this story developes we'll get most of what happened and can form a real opinion

Originally posted by PVS
a police officer must only use the taser to keep the situation from threatening him. dont ommit words to imply that they can use it whenever they just dont get their way or when someone gets upity. yelling would not be probably cause AT ALL. resisting arrest would be.

the line "stand up or we're going to tase you again". not "dont spit on me or we're going to tase you", not "stop resisting arrest or we're going to tase you". that is why i believe the events unfolded as a case of police brutality
If he was acting unruly and in a provocative manner to the police initially, then they were justified in tasering him to begin with. If he continued to be uncooperative later on, as in not standing up, then they may have had reason to believe he was going to attack them. Them saying "Stand up or we're going to tase you" is acceptable. But, I agree with your last post. We don't know anything, and won't unless we get a more accurate account.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Them saying "Stand up or we're going to tase you" is acceptable.

no, we apparently dont agree at all then, unless that is a typo.

and you are absolutely wrong about when a cop is allowed to use a taser. he is not allowed to use it just because you offend him or annoy him. he must judge based on a potential threat. any cop who payed attention in the academy will agree.

That's right, threat. Not life-threat. Not threatening his life. Someone who could be a potentially violent person.

...anyone can be a potentially violent person.
should a cop have the right to tase you for yelling "i dont deserve this ****ing ticket!"

uh oh, he's angry....might be a threat *zap*