The Latest sad "Tazering"

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
dodge.

How was it a dodge? I answered your question if you actually read my post.

Cops are more likely to FACE situations in which they may be pushed too far, but THE POINT OF BEING A COP is to NOT lose it on the outside, that is what you are failing to understand. Convenience store clerks are not bound by the same laws as cops. A convenience store clerk would get arrested if he did what the cop did.

YOUR point is: "They lose it, we should understand that.", nobody is MISunderstanding it. Point is, we do not think it's right to outwardly react.

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Should that make it acceptable? A doctor is far more likely to come over with a case of jitter hands in the middle of an operation, than a jockey, does this mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions?

A person should only enter employment knowing the risks, if they enter not knowing, it's their problem, if they enter knowing and still fvck up - it's still their problem.

If a member of the police force decides to one day go over the top and intentionally harm someone, they should be dealt with like everyone else.

also, you think ALL these oficers say to themselves "well I am gonna taze his ass, teach him a lesson?" I am sure some do, but for the most part they are acting on instinct, on reflex.

You are right when you say cops have a duty to uphold the law and not abuse their power. but wouldnt you also say that we, the general public, have a duty to cooperate with them, even when we think they are wrong?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You are right when you say cops have a duty to uphold the law and not abuse their power. but wouldnt you also say that we, the general public, have a duty to cooperate with them, even when we think they are wrong?

You just defeated your own argument in more ways than I probably could have, which is saying something.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
a doctor is operating on an idle body, an officer is dealing with someone conscious who, for all they, could be strapped. piss poor comparison.

also, you think ALL these oficers say to themselves "well I am gonna taze his ass, teach him a lesson?" I am sure some do, but for the most part they are acting on instinct, on reflex.

You are right when you say cops have a duty to uphold the law and not abuse their power. but wouldnt you also say that we, the general public, have a duty to cooperate with them, even when we think they are wrong?

But in the same light, is a citizen going to sit there why they are unjustly run over by the law?

I hate to do this...but.......My forefathers fought in the American Revolutionary War so that you could complain about people standing up for what is right.

To answer your question....hell no, if I was that dude (because I like to fight...I am not a bad ass by doing that either...more like a dumb ass.) I would have ripped those damned needles out ASAP and beat down some cowardly copper ass! (Pretend to be out of it and quickly rip out the needles...or better yet, grab/bear hug the cop so he won't taser you..heh heh.)

I have NEVER had ANY problems with ANY cops EVER. I am very very respectful and I do not argue. Therefore, I have never been tasered...I also have only been pulled over for my tail light being out and an expired tag...never been written a ticket...so I can't put myself in their shoes.

I also see what you are saying, RJ. Cops are going to be dicks because they have to deal with shit all day...you wouldn't want a nice grandma enforcing the law, would you?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't know how likely either situation is, too many variables.

What you seem to ALWAYS revert to, as you are now, is finding justification for cops losing their minds momentarily. I am not saying humans aren't capable of it, or incapable of being pushed too far.

My point is, if you cannot control that as a cop, where your job IS to remain calm, if only on the outside, in an effort to do a better, fairer job, then you simply should not be a cop. If you sign up knowing you cannot control it, and knowing you have a threshold that will likely be broken, then you are a psychopath who is honestly looking for a way to get away with a fight, as I'll now prove:

If the cop recognised it wasn't necessary to tase the man, the man wouldn't have been tased either.

It doesn't matter. Look at what you JUST said, RJ.

"if a cop pulls a tazer on you and tells you to put your hands behind your back, even though you did nothing".

That is threat of abuse of power.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You just defeated your own argument in more ways than I probably could have, which is saying something.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How was it a dodge? I answered your question if you actually read my post.

Cops are more likely to FACE situations in which they may be pushed too far, but THE POINT OF BEING A COP is to NOT lose it on the outside, that is what you are failing to understand. Convenience store clerks are not bound by the same laws as cops. A convenience store clerk would get arrested if he did what the cop did.

YOUR point is: "They lose it, we should understand that.", nobody is MISunderstanding it. Point is, we do not think it's right to outwardly react.

-AC

OK, the driver had some questions, fine. when the cop told him to put his hands behind his back, and the driver didn't, he went from traffic violator to threat. and then tried to walk away, making the officer perceive him as more of a threat.

It's not like the cop asked the driver to give him a BJ, all he asked was that he place his hands behind his back.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
but wouldnt you also say that we, the general public, have a duty to cooperate with them, even when we think they are wrong?

No.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
"too many variables."......exactly my point. for all the cop knows, you could have a grenade in your pocket or an AK47 in the trunk.

That's not what you are allowed to go by, though. It's reasonable possibility. If it's not a likely scenario, you're not bestowed the ability to act like it might be.

That's not what you are promoting though. We're discussing overly rough retaliation for someone pushing a cops buttons. Not "He might have a grenade.".

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so, these cops, in your opinion, are all just schoolyard bullies with mommy issues?

I swear all my quote said was that if you sign up and still feel you have the right to abuse your power because some punk hit a nerve, then you shouldn't be a cop.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
there is NO WAY the cop can know 100% whether it is necessary to taze the suspect, they do so to defuse a POTENTIALLY hazardous situation. lets say you and your buddy are out drinking and a cop stops you for PI. shit gets out of control, your buddy acts a fool, and he ends up shot dead on the pavement. If the cop had had the chance then and there to taze him, to prevent the shooting, would it be justified then?

What's "act like a fool"? Let's make the scenario clear.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It's not a threat of abuse of power, it;s the cop keeping the situation under control. when the driver started walking back towards his truck, for all the cop knew he was going for a weapon.

Yes, because it's beyond a cop to grab the guy, pull him away and put him on the ground, isn't it? He had to tase him.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
No.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you missed my point entirely. my point was if a cop is more prone to overreact than an average citizen, why give them reason to? even if you think you aren't being threatening, and the cop perceives you as a threat, preventative action is always an option.

And you miss the point.

Cops who are prone to overreacting don't always need a reason, ie: everything is a reason, at that point. Do you not see that?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
OK, the driver had some questions, fine. when the cop told him to put his hands behind his back, and the driver didn't, he went from traffic violator to threat. and then tried to walk away, making the officer perceive him as more of a threat.

He didn't become a threat if he wasn't ever going to be one. The officer decided he was without good reason, at least not enough to tase him.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
care to elaborate?

Exactly.

If it's getting to the point where we should cooperate when cops are clearly in the wrong, in case we are murdered, then surely cops are the ones who need scrutiny here.

-AC

I honestly cannot understand, how RJ is failing to grasp this.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's not what you are allowed to go by, though. It's reasonable possibility. If it's not a likely scenario, you're not bestowed the ability to act like it might be.

That's not what you are promoting though. We're discussing overly rough retaliation for someone pushing a cops buttons. Not "He might have a grenade.".

I swear all my quote said was that if you sign up and still feel you have the right to abuse your power because some punk hit a nerve, then you shouldn't be a cop.

What's "act like a fool"? Let's make the scenario clear.

Yes, because it's beyond a cop to grab the guy, pull him away and put him on the ground, isn't it? He had to tase him.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
actually, cops are empowered to assume someone is a threat and do whatever it takes to defuse the threat. But hey, let's just let the suspects in question do what they want, let's let them draw a piece, let's wait until it's too late and we have a dead cop/citizen on our hands.

EXACTLY.

It's for that reason that we need to start looking at these situations where cops say "THREAT!", and say "Wait, that was bs.", if it was actually bs. That's abuse of power.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
then I agree with you. IF a cop has the mindset of "Man, I am gonna jack someone up today", they should not be a cop.

Not even that. If you know you are prone to overreacting if buttons are pushed, then don't be a cop if you cannot bottle it up.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
cop says to place his hands behind his back, friend resists, cop tries to force him on the ground, friend resists, use your imagination.

You're just making up a scenario to suit yourself, though. If I were in that scenario, I would calm my friend down for his own benefit. If I knew he had no weapon and wasn't doing anything but being rowdy, then no, tasing isn't justified.

Cops are trained to be able to actually put people down. For crying out loud, Dog Chapman does it on a regular basis, and he hasn't even had training, he's some nobody.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
grab him and throw him on the ground. easier said than done. this could escalate to fisticuffs, where the suspect is far more prone to injury.

It won't escalate to fisticuffs because a cop SHOULD know better.

-AC

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I honestly cannot understand, how RJ is failing to grasp this.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so if a cop comes up to you and pulls you aside politely and wants to ask you a few questions, you tell him to bugger off?

No, but if I did I don't deserve to be tased.

Besides, that's clearly not what happened here.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I grasp it 100%. you guys are of the mindset that a cop has no right to assess a threat and act accordingly. so if a cop comes up to you and pulls you aside politely and wants to ask you a few questions, you tell him to bugger off?

Why must you continually blow things out of proportion that we're not even saying?

All we are saying is, the way in which cops deem something to be a threat must be under constant watch. Due to it being a power of theirs, it can be abused. It's wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
actually, cops are empowered to assume someone is a threat and do whatever it takes to defuse the threat. But hey, let's just let the suspects in question do what they want, let's let them draw a piece, let's wait until it's too late and we have a dead cop/citizen on our hands.

No they're not. They have the power to attempt to defuse the threat that is going on at that time, they do not have power to assume and to attack without first asking questions.

Police do not have the power to assume when stopping someone for drink driving, that the minute their hands wander to their pockets they must have a weapon. That's not the way it works, assumption is not law enforcement, assumption is idiocy.