Originally posted by PVS
and before you say 'he may not have known', i already got that. but here's the kicker ush, he didnt know either way. the woman was a threat to nobody, he was in no danger, and he pulled a weapon and assaulted her.last i checked cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.
Tasering someone for resisting arrest is normal procedure, nothing cruel and unusual about it.
Originally posted by BackFire
By speeding in a school zone she was a threat to other children.
she was pulled over. the 'threat' had ended.
the taser's purpose is to allow the cop to use non-lethal force in a threatening situation, to him or the person being apprehended. its not meant to be used to force people to obey.
why is that so arguable?
Originally posted by PVS
and before you say 'he may not have known', i already got that. but here's the kicker ush, he didnt know either way. the woman was a threat to nobody, he was in no danger, and he pulled a weapon and assaulted her.last i checked cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden.
Yes it is.
Tasering a resisting arrest suspect, however, isn't even close to cruel and unusual. It is a textbook method to non-lethally subdue people resisting arrest. If it wasn't a taser it would have been a truncheon.
Fact is, police are trained to subdue subjects resisting arrest ASAP, and without that training many cops have been killed by 'harmless' suspects before.
The policeman was acting within his training, even if you and I would consider his actions excessive.
Originally posted by PVS
in a non-threatening manner? BSi wont deny this happens, but whether or not it happens doesnt make it right and just.
It's their training to use, as Ush said, this very basic non-lethal tool to subdue people when they disobey arrest. By resisting arrest she became a potential threat.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A lightning bolt is a one second shock or less, doesn't make it any less deadly.You can subdue someone by holding them down. If the cop was under threat from a pregnant lady to the point that he felt using a taser was necessary, he's a goddamn pussy.
-AC
Find me a source where it says giving someone a shock from a tazer for 1 second has killed them. So you would rather the cop have slammed the lady to the ground by force and held her there? Thats real smart and much less dangerous then shocking her right? 🙄
Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is a common argument fallacy; despite me specifically saying I was not contesting that part, you then seem to want to reply trying to argue back on that exact point, trying to make out that just because I disagree over what was right or wrong from her I therefore believe everything else that could be construed as negative about the situation.Very bad, that.
Actually very good that.. your initial response made it seem as if the woman was breaking the law for not signing the ticket, something that really hasn't been clearly established as of yet in this forumn..Very bad that... to make an assumption..when not having any facts that substantiate it..very bad that indeed..
Originally posted by BackFire
They are, considering a taser isn't harmful or deadly, and is used to subdue people.
not harmful...
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=36713
Originally posted by KidRock
Find me a source where it says giving someone a shock from a tazer for 1 second has killed them. So you would rather the cop have slammed the lady to the ground by force and held her there? Thats real smart and much less dangerous then shocking her right? 🙄
they did bring her to the ground after the tasing.
as far as 'slamming' good luck in trying to win your arguement with exageration.
Originally posted by PVS
if the cop had just abided by the law in america there would have been no situation. she refused to allow the cop to force her to sign anything. that is her constitutional right.and for anyone who thinks the taser is 'harmless' please check this article out:
"Colorado Man Has Permanent Nerve Damage from Taser"
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=36713edit: also, exactly what crime did the baby commit to deserve electrocution?
Don't know american law on that, I assumed What he asked was ok by the law
Originally posted by PVS
not harmful...
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/usworld/news-article.aspx?storyid=36713
From the article..
" Preston was tased several times over a six-minute span "
I highly doubt the officer tazered the women several times over a six minute span. Officers are also trained to only use the tazer once for a few second to get the person on the ground. Just stupid on that one officers part.
Originally posted by PVS
they did bring her to the ground after the tasing.
as far as 'slamming' good luck in trying to win your arguement with exageration.
Why do you think she went to the ground? because she got tazered and decided not to be an idiot and listen to the officer. Also if the officer tried to get her down, do you think she would have followed his command? Doubt it, since she was resisting arrest already. How else would he get her to the ground without tripping her or slamming her down?
Of course, in the second paragraph of that article, it says he was tasered several times in 6 minutes, that's obviously excessive force, that just proves a taser shouldn't be used multiple times over a short time span, doesn't mean using it properly is dangerous.
The lady in this thread got tasered once. What's the worst that could happen? The baby will have a tan.
Originally posted by BackFire
Of course, in the second paragraph of that article, it says he was tasered several times in 6 minutes, that's obviously excessive force, that just proves a taser shouldn't be used multiple times over a short time span, doesn't mean using it properly is dangerous.The lady in this thread got tasered once. What's the worst that could happen? The baby will have a tan.
Actually, in the article....
In his testimony, the Taser officer said he pressed the prongs of the muzzle against Brooks' thigh to no effect. So he applied it twice to her exposed neck.
Originally posted by KidRock
From the article.." Preston was tased several times over a six-minute span "
I highly doubt the officer tazered the women several times over a six minute span. Officers are also trained to only use the tazer once for a few second to get the person on the ground. Just stupid on that one officers part.
from that article: The first, for "3 seconds," the second for "2 or 3 seconds," the third time for "2 or 3 seconds" and the fourth time, for the "full five seconds." (4 times)
from this article: In his testimony, the Taser officer said he pressed the prongs of the muzzle against Brooks' thigh to no effect. So he applied it twice to her exposed neck. (3 times)
Originally posted by Lana
Actually, in the article....
I am still trying to find out where in the article it said she was tasered several times over a 6 minute period. She was shocked twice.
Originally posted by PVS
from that article: The first, for "3 seconds," the second for "2 or 3 seconds," the third time for "2 or 3 seconds" and the fourth time, for the "full five seconds." (4 times)from this article: In his testimony, the Taser officer said he pressed the prongs of the muzzle against Brooks' thigh to no effect. So he applied it twice to her exposed neck. (3 times)
He did it twice in the article, and it didnt say how long he did it for. Do you really think the officer held his tazer to her neck for 4 second? or 3 seconds?
Originally posted by KidRock
I am still trying to find out where in the article it said she was tasered several times over a 6 minute period. She was shocked twice.
3 times, actually; once on her leg and twice on her neck.
I dunno...she broke the law by resisting arrest, but tasering her 3 times is a bit excessive, I think.