Originally posted by jaden101
No...but it may have saved her ass.
True...but...as Bards pointed out, she offered to sign the piece of paper right after getting out of the vehicle.
But, no police officer should tolerate that type of attitude. IMO, he was taking the correct action by following through with the arrest. Same treatment should be given to all, regardless of age, ethnicity, religion, etc. One force, one service. Like I was saying earlier, he definitely wouldn't have been so nice to someone like myself, had I been just as mouthy.
Well, there was that one Hi-Po that had that crazy man that was even worse than this lady, and he was calm cool and collected. So, I can see this having a different outcome, had the patrolman decided to be nicer.
Originally posted by dadudemon
True...but...as Bards pointed out, she offered to sign the piece of paper right after getting out of the vehicle.
She initially refused to sign it and that's when he threatened to arrest her...She still continued to be verbally abusive and then tried to drive off without being allowed to.
She was warned. Physically restraining her could've resulted in more severe injuries than a tazer and so i think he took the right step. Anything else could have resulted in them stubbling into traffic. A tazer imobilises the person and so removes this danger.
Originally posted by jaden101
She initially refused to sign it and that's when he threatened to arrest her...
Technically, she said to take her to jail. lulz
Originally posted by jaden101
She still continued to be verbally abusive and then tried to drive off without being allowed to.She was warned. Physically restraining her could've resulted in more severe injuries than a tazer and so i think he took the right step. Anything else could have resulted in them stubbling into traffic. A tazer imobilises the person and so removes this danger.
You aren't getting any disagreement from me as I said the same things in a different way.
Tasers = potentially fatal. This is according to an internal investigation into the tasering death of a man in a Vancouver air-port done by the federal police agency of Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/12/14/rcmp-taser.html
putting the woman's hands behind her back in a way that doesn't break them = maybe hurts, not potentially fatal.
not feeling the need to escalate a situation physically when a person is being uncooperative = what police need to do
Originally posted by jaden101Logic prevails. 👆
She initially refused to sign it and that's when he threatened to arrest her...She still continued to be verbally abusive and then tried to drive off without being allowed to.She was warned. Physically restraining her could've resulted in more severe injuries than a tazer and so i think he took the right step. Anything else could have resulted in them stubbling into traffic. A tazer imobilises the person and so removes this danger.
Originally posted by jaden101
She initially refused to sign it and that's when he threatened to arrest her...She still continued to be verbally abusive and then tried to drive off without being allowed to.She was warned. Physically restraining her could've resulted in more severe injuries than a tazer and so i think he took the right step. Anything else could have resulted in them stubbling into traffic. A tazer imobilises the person and so removes this danger.
a tazer causes more stress to the body then the force required to physically restrain her. what part of "powerful electric forces grounding itself through your organs" sounds more acceptable then just grabbing her arms? the chances of the women having a heart attack out of fear, which is the only way physical restraining could be harmful, is significantly lower then the chances of her DYING by having her 80 year old heart forcefully given a jump-start jumper cable style.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
a tazer causes more stress to the body then the force required to physically restrain her. what part of "powerful electric forces grounding itself through your organs" sounds more acceptable then just grabbing her arms? the chances of the women having a heart attack out of fear, which is the only way physical restraining could be harmful, is significantly lower then the chances of her DYING by having her 80 year old heart forcefully given a jump-start jumper cable style.
1: A physical struggle could've meant the 2 of them stumbling into traffic and being killed and causing a serious crash incident.
2: You've obviously never heard of osteoporosis. An age related bone weakening disease that means that bones fracture far easier than in younger people which would've resulted in more serious injury than being tased.
3: A heart attack out of fear out of fear is as likely from being physically restrained and cuffed as it if from being tased.
4: A taser doesn't directly affect the heart. In order for internal organ disruption to occur from electricity it needs amps rather than volts. If you apply a high voltage with low amps (as tasers are designed to do) then it wont shock the heart into fibrilation.
5: A taser isn't designed to induce compliance by pain. It does it by removing control of muscles.
To me the issue really isn't the tasing or not tasing, the stupid part is that the cop thought (and its probably not even the cops fault he probably has some handbook telling him or somesuch) that the woman should have been arrested for speeding, not signing a ticket, and behaving a bit like a dick. That's just stupid, imo.
And yes, dadudemon, I'd find it stupid if it happened to you as well.
Why in the world do you have to sign a ticket, in a high pressure situation like that?