|
|
this must be routine - FTP:
http://infowars.net/articles/novembe...11107Tased.htm
Note the dick at the end, saying "nice job"...............
Moderator
I have far less of an issue with this use of Taser, than I have with the Vancouver one. In this case we have an non-compliant with passenger and a lone officer. As I said in the other thread regarding this particular issue, I'd have shot him.Originally Posted by banned it
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
He's simply asking 'Why?' - and not getting a reasonable response, as opposed to the poor sap in the Van airport who was in a bit of a rage, and felt helpless, so he tossed a chair and a monitor, or whatever......neither are worthy of being 'shot' with anything.
Are govt's just begging for a tyrannical public?
oops - my bad........sorry.
Moderator
If you listen to the conversation they have, he was given the "why" and refused to accept it. He had just passed a 40 MPH sign and, according to the officer's comments, there was another one prior to the point where taping began. The subject stated flatly that there were no such signs and refused to co-operate until he was shown them. On an open highway this is impractical, dangerous, and removes the officer from a position of supervision over the stopped vehicle. He was aggressive and obstinate, and paid the price for it.
The Vancouver Airport incident apparently went on for quite some time before RCMP arrived and involved much tossing of furniture. Despite that I STILL will maintain that RCMP reacted inappropriately in that situation. They had numeric superiority, in an enclosed and controllable location, and had both guns and Tasers as fall-back should they prove necessary.
Escalation of force guidelines are just that; guidelines. Situations frequently devolve more quickly than can comfortably be handled by such guidelines and, so, officers deal with things as they come. A single officer has much less leeway to play around with in a situation, than do several.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
50 000 volts he WOULDN'T have got, if he'd listened to the cop in the first place.
What a moron.
WOW!!! Talk about conspiracy theory. I'd rather get hit by a taser than with a baton or pepper spray.
ROADRASH - A mid winter skin condition caused by the stress of not riding my bike!!
http://madleyphotography.com
Really? Everyone I know would gladly take Pepper spray and a Baton. My little bro for 1st F.A.S.T. Co (USMC) had to get CS sprayed then run an obsticle course and conduct a takedown and hogtie all while under the influence of the CS Spray. The tazer scares him.
When I was in the maries, I had to run an obsticle course with an aligator attached to my pecker, and my eyes full of commy jiz......the taser... Love it.... should have modded it to pump out some more amps and fry that lunatic....
I've seen similar videos where the officer tries to calmly explain the situation to an obstinate and non-compliant driver, while the passenger emerges from the opposite side of the vehicle with a weapon. I've also seen another video where the non-compliant person feigns the innocent "why?" routine, only to snatch the officer's gun and use it on him.
In this video, the guy turns his back on the officer and starts walking back to the vehicle. Dangerous stuff.
When dealing with a police officer, keep your hands in view, remain facing the officer, keep your distance from him, and follow instructions. If you want to argue, you might want to wait until the situation has cooled down a bit, or even until your court date.
I wasn't there in this situation, so who knows what was said, how it was said, etc. But if you put yourself in the shoes of the officer, you'll realize he's in a potentially dangerous situation that can escalate quickly.
That being said, I'm not a fan of the taser. I think it's used too often and people are much too cavalier with it, just because it's "non-lethal". They should say it's "mostly non-lethal".
--- D
To everybody that agrees with the cop in this video clip, I HOPE you'll meet one just like him at some point in the future. Then if your behaviour is as flawless as you believe it to be, you won't get tazered. Otherwise enjoy 50kV running through your body.
Read the entire article and watch the WHOLE clip: "All charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped." In other words the prosecutors considered the driver did not behave improperly, given the entire incident was recorded.
Moderator
If I come across an officer like this, it's unlikely that I would ever know it. You see, I wouldn't be combative about the situation. I'd take my ticket and deal with it in court, as is my right.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
+1...
In the end this will produce a much better outcome
R e a d S l o w l y ! - Children at Play.
I didn't say I agree with the cop. I just said that if you're in a confrontation with an armed person, you had better be really careful, and really compliant, because they may see the situation very differently than you do. They may feel more threatened than you think and may react in a way that you would never dream. The trouble is, because they're armed, they can act on their fear and uncertainty in ways that you can't. So, be cool, move slow, and if they start to get worked up, follow instructions.
I have likely met cops like this guy. As well as security guards, border agents, military police, airport security, etc. When I do, I'm careful.
--- D
The only other occupants is his wife and baby. Don't think either are coming out with a Glock-9 aimed at the cop.
If the officer had not ordered him out to arrest him, we wouldn't have this situation.
Consider driver's point of view. You have just refused (maybe a bit to vociferously) to sign a ticket which you have a right to do and now you have been ordered out of your vehicle to be arrested while your wife and baby is left alone in a vehicle on the side of a highway. How calm might you be?
Moderator
You might be a little surprised in that regard. Perhaps not in THIS situation, but the officer had no way of knowing.
How combative would you be, given that your wife and child were in the car? Nervous I can understand, but belligerent?If the officer had not ordered him out to arrest him, we wouldn't have this situation.
Consider driver's point of view. You have just refused (maybe a bit to vociferously) to sign a ticket which you have a right to do and now you have been ordered out of your vehicle to be arrested while your wife and baby is left alone in a vehicle on the side of a highway. How calm might you be?
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Ready to bet your life on it?
You're implying that cops shouldn't arrest people in order avoid a dangerous confrontation?If the officer had not ordered him out to arrest him, we wouldn't have this situation.
I certainly wouldn't be very calm. I'm sure my heart would be racing and my mind would be spinning. I'd be looking for a way to defuse the situation without anyone getting hurt. And I'd be VERY conscious of the fact that I'm dealing with an armed man who is very angry with me for some reason, even if that reason is beyond my comprehension.
Consider driver's point of view. You have just refused (maybe a bit to vociferously) to sign a ticket which you have a right to do and now you have been ordered out of your vehicle to be arrested while your wife and baby is left alone in a vehicle on the side of a highway. How calm might you be?
I'd also recognize that it's probably better for my wife and baby's welfare if I don't argue with the armed and angry police officer.
--- D
He didn't come at the officer, he walked away from the confrontation back to his vehicle.
Whom you would not expect to taser or shoot you over not signing a ticket.
Except a father's base instinct that it's better for their welfare that he stay with them rather than leave them to an obviously hostile officer.
I will just make a final point. There was a pivotal moment from which you have 2 possible outcomes - when the officer returned to the vehicle from his cruiser. He could have:
a) give him the ticket unsigned, explained what's next, and let him go
b) order him out of the vehicle to arrest him FOR NOT SIGNING A SPEEDING TICKET ... unless he discovered from calling it in that this guy was dangerous with something outstanding, then I give it to the officer but as of this time, that is not the case
a) becomes another routine traffic stop. b) starts a chain of events that we could keep debating over different variations but will eventually end in a arrest and may/or may not a tasering.
So why did the officer choose b) as a better option over a)? Was the public any safer with b) over a)?
Call this my final argument. The zeekat rests.
Last edited by zeekat; 11-22-2007 at 05:14 PM.
I agree that the officer made a series of bad decisions. I'm not saying he's in the right here. I'm only saying that when confronted with an irrational, aggressive, armed cop, you are going to lose if you put up resistance.I will just make a final point. There was a pivotal moment from which you have 2 possible outcomes - when the officer returned to the vehicle from his cruiser. He could have:
a) give him the ticket unsigned, explained what's next, and let him go
b) order him out of the vehicle to arrest him FOR NOT SIGNING A SPEEDING TICKET ... unless he discovered from calling it in that this guy was dangerous with something outstanding, then I give it to the officer but as of this time, that is not the case
a) becomes another routine traffic stop. b) starts a chain of events that we could keep debating over different variations but will eventually end in a arrest and may/or may not a tasering.
So why did the officer choose b) as a better option over a)? Was the public any safer with b) over a)?
Call this my final argument. The zeekat rests.
That's why I don't like tasers. They create a blurry middle ground for cops to make bad decisions. When you have a lethal weapon, you have very strict guidelines about using it and cops will think long and hard before shooting. When you have a "mostly non-lethal" weapon, the rules of engagement get blurry and things can happen that aren't well thought out. And people die when the "mostly" part doesn't hold up.
--- D
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks