Good thing Texas has a Baby Moses law.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/11/29/delgreco.pregnant.taser.whio

::shakes head:: Jeez. This is sad.

Also, this gives me a thought... Do you think that this is a new trend, tasering people all the time? Or did this happen before, and there's just a new trend in reporting it?

::shakes head:: Jeez. This is sad.

Also, this gives me a thought... Do you think that this is a new trend, tasering people all the time? Or did this happen before, and there's just a new trend in reporting it?Probably a bit of both, that plus the added availability of quick video via cell phones. A lot of things that used to go on in the dark, so to speak, can be brought to light now.

You know, you guys only increase my confidence in taser usage. Every single video so far has involved a person who fights with police. Since I don't fight with the police and have never had a good reason to, I don't get tazed. Crazy huh?

I love how we never see video splashed all over the news of someone injuring a police officer in a tussle not involving a taser. Believe me, it happens. A lot.

And guess what, everytime someone injures a police officer, it costs you and me money.

You know, you guys only increase my confidence in taser usage. Every single video so far has involved a person who fights with police. Since I don't fight with the police and have never had a good reason to, I don't get tazed. Crazy huh?
I've had mixed feelings on these cases. I judge by the individual case, as you would know if you noticed that I've sided with the police in some cases and the tasered person in others.

In this case I don't think the video is clear enough to make any concrete judgments, but I'd say I agree with you. The police were probably justified in using the taser. And you assumed that I thought they weren't justified, didn't you?

(I said it was sad because it turned out that the woman was pregnant. I should hope that the police would NOT have used the taser if they had known.)

In this case I don't think the video is clear enough to make any concrete judgments, but I'd say I agree with you. The police were probably justified in using the taser. And you assumed that I thought they weren't justified, didn't you?


I must admit I did.

I must admit I did.
Sorry if I was unclear. I refrained from making a judgment in my first post, because I think that we don't have enough information to decide whether the force used was appropriate in this case.

However, without a taser, what would the men have done to the woman? Since she was pregnant, other forms of non-lethal restraint could have harmed her more. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if being thrown down flat on her stomach was more detrimental to her baby than the actual tasering. Although I do admit that I'm not sure what she did wrong here. She wanted to give her baby to police but then she changed her mind, and they responded by trying to detain her.

Good thing Texas has a Baby Moses law.

Im not familiar with that law. What are your opinions about this particular incedent?

Im not familiar with that law. What are your opinions about this particular incedent?My opinion is that it's assinine for a cop to have to electrocute a woman when he has her on the ground. Good thing the FBI is investigating.

Every single video so far has involved a person who fights with police. Nope. The motorist wo got tased wasn't fighting with anyone.

My opinion is that it's assinine for a cop to have to electrocute a woman when he has her on the ground. Good thing the FBI is investigating.Why do you hype something up to what it is not? This "cop" didnt electrocute the woman. He used a taser on her.




electrocute



Main Entry: elec·tro·cute
Pronunciation: \i-ˈlek-trə-ˌkyüt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): elec·tro·cut·ed; elec·tro·cut·ing
Etymology: electr- + -cute (as in execute)
Date: 1889
1 : to execute (a criminal) by electricity
2 : to kill by electric shock

Nope. The motorist wo got tased wasn't fighting with anyone.No, he simply was making a move to get to his car, where anything could have happened after that.

No, he simply was making a move to get to his car, where anything could have happened after that.Leper said they were all "fighting." I was correcting the record. (Like you in your last post?)

Why do you hype something up to what it is not? This "cop" didnt electrocute the woman. He used a taser on her.
The word may also be used to indicate harm. Though in the future I'll refrain from that usage so as not to cause confusion.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) - Cite This Source - Share This
electrocute1 verb

to kill or injure (a person etc) by electricity
Example: [I]The child was electrocuted when he touched an uncovered electric wire.

Nope. The motorist wo got tased wasn't fighting with anyone.

I guess that depends on how you describe "fighting." Personally, if the police pull you over for a traffic citation and you respond by being rude, arguing about the speed limit (and being wrong about it), refusing to sign the ticket, and refusing to obey the officers order to put your hands behind your back (which you damn well know will result in a tussle), I call that "fighting."

I guess that depends on how you describe "fighting." Personally, if the police pull you over for a traffic citation and you respond by being rude, arguing about the speed limit (and being wrong about it), refusing to sign the ticket, and refusing to obey the officers order to put your hands behind your back (which you damn well know will result in a tussle), I call that "fighting."Well, that's exactly the point isn't it? Tasers are meant to be a "less lethal" option for officers where as previously they were limited to only "lethel" weapons. But these days, cops are using tasers in the place of tried and true methods for dealing with people under stress.

A pistol would never be allowed to settle an arguement, but a potentially lethal taser is being used all the damn time. And if you think an argument is the same as "fighting," I wonder how we are ever to reach any kind of consensus about law as it relates to the use of violence against the citizenery. For someone who is at time pretty precise with language, I'm a little suprised that you'd equate the two.

I guess that depends on how you describe "fighting." Personally, if the police pull you over for a traffic citation and you respond by being rude, arguing about the speed limit (and being wrong about it), refusing to sign the ticket, and refusing to obey the officers order to put your hands behind your back (which you damn well know will result in a tussle), I call that "fighting."QFT

QFTWhat does QFT mean?

A pistol would never be allowed to settle an arguement, but a potentially lethal taser is being used all the damn time.
The point is that you're not supposed to argue with the officer in the first place. He's got a job to do. If you do not agree with his actions then you "argue" your case in court, not the side of a busy highway. The police officers first duty is to control the scene. Allow them to do their job and there is a VERY good chance you wont get tased.

What does QFT mean?
quoted for truth

quoted for truthYou never been in a fight, huh?

You never been in a fight, huh?Yes, but what has that to do with anything. There are several types of definitions to the term "fight". Verbal, logistical, physical, psychological to name a few.

Maybe struggle would have been a better term to use? The guy was struggling to take control of the scene on the side of the highway. Is that better? Either way you look at it, he was uncooperative with the officer, and determined to have it his way. It didnt work out to his favor.

Either way you look at it, he was uncooperative with the officer, and determined to have it his way. It didnt work out to his favor.All I saw was a guy who stood up for himself, then tried to protect himself from a shockingly reactive cop.

When he was told to stop, by the lights and siren, he stopped. When told to produce license and registration, he did. He obviously had no warrents; so he's not a wanted man. He just didn't agree with the cop or understand that he wasn't admitting guilt by signing for receipt of the ticket, which the genious cop could have calmly explained and put his fellow goddam American at ease! Then, when told to step out of the car, the driver does.

It is only when he turns around to face a weapon pointed at him that he reacts away from the cop. Pretty reasonable to me.

Piss poor police work, relying on violence when none is offered toward him.

There are several types of definitions to the term "fight". Verbal, logistical, physical, psychological to name a few.Do you not feel that force should be limited to in-kind response? It is in every application I can think of other than cops with tasers.

You'd get strung up if you punched someone, or shot somebody in "self-defensive," because the attacked you phychologically.

Well, that's exactly the point isn't it? Tasers are meant to be a "less lethal" option for officers where as previously they were limited to only "lethel" weapons. But these days, cops are using tasers in the place of tried and true methods for dealing with people under stress.

A pistol would never be allowed to settle an arguement, but a potentially lethal taser is being used all the damn time. And if you think an argument is the same as "fighting," I wonder how we are ever to reach any kind of consensus about law as it relates to the use of violence against the citizenery. For someone who is at time pretty precise with language, I'm a little suprised that you'd equate the two.

You state that a taser is "potentially lethal", and I suppose it is in some rare instances, or if it's misused. So are a nightstick, pepper-spray, and choke-holds. Which of these methods of taking people into custody do you see as preferable to tasers?

Under what conditions do you think it's right or advisable to argue with, or ignore the lawful commands of a police officer?

BTW, I'd have to say I think it's impossible to come to any conclusions about the incident involving the pregnant woman based on the available information, except to say it's a shame that a pregnant woman got tased.

I guess that depends on how you describe "fighting." Personally, if the police pull you over for a traffic citation and you respond by being rude, arguing about the speed limit (and being wrong about it), refusing to sign the ticket, and refusing to obey the officers order to put your hands behind your back (which you damn well know will result in a tussle), I call that "fighting."
Holy shit! Now we're arguing over the definition of the word, "fight?"

Admit it, you people just like seeing others get tazed. Next you'll be saying that it's okay for an officer to taze anyone for a little bit of back talk.

Do you not feel that force should be limited to in-kind response? It is in every application I can think of other than cops with tasers.

You'd get strung up if you punched someone, or shot somebody in "self-defensive," because the attacked you phychologically.I was merely stating there are seperate definitions. You and I do not see this particular situation through the same color glasses at all.

You state that a taser is "potentially lethal", and I suppose it is in some rare instances, or if it's misused. It is considered by law enforcement to be a "Less Lethal" weapon, as such it should be used with the full knowledge that a situation is dire enough that death is a possible outcome.

So are a nightstick, pepper-spray, and choke-holds. Which of these methods of taking people into custody do you see as preferable to tasers?A nightstick to the knee doesn't kill and you know it. I can't think of any situations where pepper spray has killed, or choke-holds, when properly applied. (I have been trained in these methods in the Navy.) But the point is this: none of the situations we have examined here had a victim using violence against the police. In each case the violence was initiated and ramped up by the cops.

Under what conditions do you think it's right or advisable to argue with, or ignore the lawful commands of a police officer?If the cop looks psychotic, I'm not obeying his commands. But this misses the issue all together: how should the police act toward people under stress, people who are their fellow citizens and so are their charge to protect. To me that means not using a weapon against them that is known to be lethal to some folks unless absolutely demanded by threat by them.

BTW, I'd have to say I think it's impossible to come to any conclusions about the incident involving the pregnant woman based on the available information, except to say it's a shame that a pregnant woman got tased.I agree that we need more info. What crime did she commit that justified the cop ever putting his hands on her, an assault if you or I did it?

But I can imagine no justification for tasing a lone woman who is on the ground with an officer on her back.

You and I do not see this particular situation through the same color glasses at all.
So be it. If it happens to you, I'll be a voice to protest it.

But I can imagine no justification for tasing a lone woman who is on the ground with an officer on her back.
Well, I definitely see where you're coming from. He already had her down on the ground. The commentary on the video made it seem as though he got her on the ground and immediately tasered her. Was she still fighting? I can't see how the officer could think that he or anyone else was in physical danger if he was already on top of her restraining her, unless she was like twice his size of course. :p

... unless she was like twice his size of course. :pThat's one big baby!:cool:

It is considered by law enforcement to be a "Less Lethal" weapon, as such it should be used with the full knowledge that a situation is dire enough that death is a possible outcome.

That seems a bit extreme to me. IMO, if the potential for death appears, that allows the use of deadly force.


A nightstick to the knee doesn't kill and you know it.

No, but a blow to the head can certainly kill.


I can't think of any situations where pepper spray has killed, or choke-holds, when properly applied. (I have been trained in these methods in the Navy.)

http://www.abc2news.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=995037cc-cfaf-4f27-b4f1-f5c1994606c2

Anytime you get into a physical confrontation with the police, it's possible someone will die.


But the point is this: none of the situations we have examined here had a victim using violence against the police. In each case the violence was initiated and ramped up by the cops.

Specifically, which situations are you referring to?


If the cop looks psychotic, I'm not obeying his commands.

Ok. :)


But this misses the issue all together: how should the police act toward people under stress, people who are their fellow citizens and so are their charge to protect. To me that means not using a weapon against them that is known to be lethal to some folks unless absolutely demanded by threat by them.

As stated I agree completely. I think we disagree as to what constitutes a threat, and I think we view the officer's position a little differently as well. I can tell you that 25 years ago if you went to school and got a degree in Police Science, you came out of the school viewing every person you might encounter as a policeman as a potential threat...or you weren't paying attention.


I agree that we need more info. What crime did she commit that justified the cop ever putting his hands on her, an assault if you or I did it?

I don't know, but she was with a child that she had tried to "give away", at least according to the video that was posted. Perhaps the officer was concerned for the child's welfare when she tried to leave with the child. The officer may not have had any legal jurisdiction to detain her, but I can understand why he might have. Again, it's very hard to say without knowing more about their interaction.


But I can imagine no justification for tasing a lone woman who is on the ground with an officer on her back.

What if she was screaming hysterically that she was going to kill you and your grip on her was tentative? :)

You know, you guys only increase my confidence in taser usage. Every single video so far has involved a person who fights with police. Since I don't fight with the police and have never had a good reason to, I don't get tazed. Crazy huh?

I love how we never see video splashed all over the news of someone injuring a police officer in a tussle not involving a taser. Believe me, it happens. A lot.

And guess what, everytime someone injures a police officer, it costs you and me money.
Yep, I agree completely. Though I don't know that a taser was 100% appropriate here--I don't see why he couldn't have used pepper spray instead. Perhaps he needs a bit of education on the use of tasers and how they should be used only when pepper spray is not an option or is not able to disable a struggling detainee. But he wasn't woefully out of line or anything; the taser was, at worst, a slightly questionable choice.

Yep, I agree completely. Though I don't know that a taser was 100% appropriate here--I don't see why he couldn't have used pepper spray instead. Perhaps he needs a bit of education on the use of tasers and how they should be used only when pepper spray is not an option or is not able to disable a struggling detainee. But he wasn't woefully out of line or anything; the taser was, at worst, a slightly questionable choice.Y'all are weak if you can't handle a lone woman you already have pinned on the ground without resorting to weapons. Gawd!

Y'all are weak if you can't handle a lone woman you already have pinned on the ground without resorting to weapons. Gawd!
When there's a possibility that the woman might have a weapon? I'd certainly rather see the officer taser the woman than see the woman draw a gun and blow the cop's head off.

Good Lord! Why don't we just taze everyone then, before we arrest them? Because, you know, he could pull a weapon...

Good Lord! Why don't we just taze everyone then, before we arrest them? Because, you know, he could pull a weapon...
She was resisting. Good lord, Nappy, you claim to hate the angry back-and-forth here just as much as anyone, then you build these lovely straw men to tear down.

And they had her under control! You stop with your strawman of everybody just itching to pull a gun out on cops, and I'll stop ridiculing it!

And they had her under control! You stop with your strawman of everybody just itching to pull a gun out on cops, and I'll stop ridiculing it!
What? How the hell is that a straw man? Vile has a degree in Police Science, and he said that police officers are trained to view everyone as a potential threat. Obviously this doesn't mean tasing everyone in sight, but they certainly should behave cautiously.

By the way, if they had her under control...why use a taser on her? It doesn't parse.

By the way, if they had her under control...why use a taser on her? It doesn't parse.
It doesn't to me either.

It doesn't to me either.
Then why the knee-jerk reaction blaming the cop? We have no idea how under control that woman was just by that silent video.

It doesn't to me either.Just a thought, but maybe she was grabbing the officer's package or something while he was trying to get her to calm down. Someone gets ahold of the danglers, and there's a problem.

Just a thought, but maybe she was grabbing the officer's package or something while he was trying to get her to calm down. Someone gets ahold of the danglers, and there's a problem.
Don't cops generally wear cups? I mean, it would make sense if they did, but maybe they don't. I don't know.

Then why the knee-jerk reaction blaming the cop? We have no idea how under control that woman was just by that silent video.
They had her on the ground!

Just a thought, but maybe she was grabbing the officer's package or something while he was trying to get her to calm down. Someone gets ahold of the danglers, and there's a problem.So the guy calmly reaches for his weapon belt, unlimbers his taser, and fires her up in the neck...gotcha!

They had her on the ground!
Do you remember the Andrew Meyer video? There were like five cops around the guy, and they couldn't get the cuffs on him, because he kept struggling. Just because someone is on the ground does not mean they're under control.

Don't cops generally wear cups? I mean, it would make sense if they did, but maybe they don't. I don't know.Sure, because all citizens who don't carry guns to shoot cops with, know to go for the stones.

This is rediculous! We are not in a war zone! The woman goes to the police station of her own free will looking for some kind of help and ends up tased!

It means he is in no position to harm the officer. That's why they put them there. *sighs*

They had Andrew Meyer under control, they just couldn't cuff him.

So the guy calmly reaches for his weapon belt, unlimbers his taser, and fires her up in the neck...gotcha!I'll turn your question from earlier back on ya with a twist.

You dont have a set of danglers, do you? :) Added smilie to show i meant no harm.

Do you remember the Andrew Meyer video? There were like five cops around the guy, and they couldn't get the cuffs on him, because he kept struggling. Just because someone is on the ground does not mean they're under control.Right and he hurt no one! It was the cops who used violence.

This is rediculous! We are not in a war zone! The woman goes to the police station of her own free will looking for some kind of help and ends up tased!
Oversimplification. The woman tries to run from the cops and gets tased. Big difference.

I'll turn your question from earlier back on ya with a twist.

You dont have a set of danglers, do you?You mean nuts? Of course I do, which is how I know the scenario is beyond silly.

Right and he hurt no one! It was the cops who used violence.
We're not getting into that one again. I was using it as an example of how such a situation can still be not under control, not trying to open old debates.

Oversimplification. The woman tries to run from the cops and gets tased. Big difference.Your buddies handled the entire thing wrong, and this is the end of their skill and training? Oh, she might have scratched me!

Your buddies handled the entire thing wrong, and this is the end of their skill and training? Oh, she might have scratched me!
Buddies? Beg pardon?

:) Added smilie to show i meant no harm.Nice touch. :cool:

Buddies? Beg pardon?These taser happy cops you love so much. Have you ever seen one you didn't support?

So Borg, HaVoK, can you guys draw a line at which a tazer shouldn't be used? What situation would you see that a cop wouldn't be justified in using a tazer? Just taze 'em if they show the slightest bit of resistance?

Oversimplification. The woman tries to run from the cops and gets tased. Big difference.
Okay, but it's not as if she had done something wrong. She had every right to get away from them if she wanted to. She was the one who went to them, they did not apprehend her on suspicion of having committed a crime or anything like that.

It's really cool to talk to people with different points of view. It makes me go back over things and see if I see what and how they see things. I went back over the video's.

The one with the kid getting tased was completely justifiable imo.

I think that this one, however, could and maybe should have been handled differently to be honest. The woman was on her stomach with an officer sprawled across her back. Unless she truly had ahold of his package, i see no reason to have tased her even if she was resisting.

But think about this shiloh....maybe they tased her to keep from having to break her arm. I mean, it doesnt take much torque to snap an arm if you have it pinned behind someone. Just a thought, which would you prefer? Getting tased or broken arm?

I think they should just train cops in jiu-jitsu. It would solve an awful lot of problems.

Just a thought, which would you prefer? Getting tased or broken arm?These are not the only two options. And the point I'm trying to make is: cops should not use a potentially lethal weapon unless they are threatened with a great risk. My God, sit on her till she tires out!

These are not the only two options. And the point I'm trying to make is: cops should not use a potentially lethal weapon unless they are threatened with a great risk. My God, sit on her till she tires out!
Everything is potentially threatening though shiloh. Hell, sitting on a person could kill them. They could keep struggling until they have a heart attack, for pete's sake. There is nothing in this world that is absolutely non-life threatening in a high tension situation.


Edit: Unless you can talk some sense into the person resisting arrest/dentention.

I think they should just train cops in jiu-jitsu. It would solve an awful lot of problems.I actually train several here in Houston, Brazilian style. They think the tasering thing is a weakness. It is from a HFD guy I train that I got the line: How did this country get along so long without the taser?

In any event all of the situations we've discussed here should have been resovlable with no violence at all, much less the use of weapons.

Everything is potentially threatening though shiloh. Hell, sitting on a person could kill them. They could keep struggling until they have a heart attack, for pete's sake. There is nothing in this world that is absolutely non-life threatening in a high tension situation.True. But the use of a weapon changes the responsibility to be absolutely right to the shooter.

Okay, but it's not as if she had done something wrong. She had every right to get away from them if she wanted to. She was the one who went to them, they did not apprehend her on suspicion of having committed a crime or anything like that.
How do you know that?
So Borg, HaVoK, can you guys draw a line at which a tazer shouldn't be used? What situation would you see that a cop wouldn't be justified in using a tazer? Just taze 'em if they show the slightest bit of resistance?
I think that the use of a taser (not tazer, get your spelling straight) is inherently justified any time someone physically resists an officer, runs from an officer, or threatens an officer, as long as due warning is given that the person will be tased if they don't comply (unless there is no time for such a warning). It's on the same level as pepper spray in that regard.
These taser happy cops you love so much. Have you ever seen one you didn't support?
To be perfectly honest, I have not yet. However, I've only seen the three videos that have been posted on Allforums. I can certainly imagine situations in which a taser would be inappropriate.

To be perfectly honest, I have not yet. However, I've only seen the three videos that have been posted on Allforums. I can certainly imagine situations in which a taser would be inappropriate.Does it honestly not concern you that a weapon that has killed enough people that it's now a real controversy, would be used against someone when no threat of violence is offered by that person?

Does it honestly not concern you that a weapon that has killed enough people that it's now a real controversy
I think that the lethal threat of tasers is often overestimated. Though, I have said before, I think that pepper spray should be used in situations where tasers might be appropriate, unless pepper spray is clearly inappropriate (e.g. large crowds or a fleeing suspect)
would be used against someone when no threat of violence is offered by that person?
I outlined what situations I think a taser is justified for in an above post. The one you quoted, actually.

How do you know that?
It said she approached the police because she wanted to give them her baby. Then, if I remember correctly, they began to question her about herself and the child, and she refused to give information. Then she tried to leave, and they grabbed her, tried to keep her there, and grabbed her kid. She continued trying to leave, and the cop threw her down on the ground and tasered her. You know what, now that I watch the video again and actually write out the events, the more I think that the use of the taser may not have been justified.

It said she approached the police because she wanted to give them her baby. Then, if I remember correctly, they began to question her about herself and the child, and she refused to give information. Then she tried to leave, and they grabbed her, tried to keep her there, and grabbed her kid. She continued trying to leave, and the cop threw her down on the ground and tasered her. You know what, now that I watch the video again and actually write out the events, the more I think that the use of the taser may not have been justified.
I think the police had three words on their minds: Felony child endangerment. That's just a hypothesis, but I certainly think that if they had reason to believe she was a danger to her child, and they had reasonable suspicion (the level of evidence required to legally detain someone), then yes, they were justified in preventing her from leaving. Now, was that why they stopped her from leaving? I'm not sure from the video alone.

I think the police had three words on their minds: Felony child endangerment. You mean that by letting her walk away they would be committing felony child endangerment?

You mean that by letting her walk away they would be committing felony child endangerment?
No, that she was endangering her child. I mean, if she doesn't want a kid and is trying to give it to the police department, something is obviously somewhat awry.

No, that she was endangering her child. I mean, if she doesn't want a kid and is trying to give it to the police department, something is obviously somewhat awry.Child endangerment is a crime of doing something that puts the child at risk, not a state of mind. To be unhappy as a parent or to feel over your head is no crime. To seek help is no crime. If they only had concern for the child, why hassle her once they have the child? Why the takedown in the first place?

This is my point about these idiots we allow to carry weapons: how do you mishandle this interaction? If you think the child is at risk, accept the child when she offers it, then ask questions, but until you know that a crime has been committed, keep your damn hands off of people!

All I saw was a guy who stood up for himself, then tried to protect himself from a shockingly reactive cop.

When he was told to stop, by the lights and siren, he stopped. When told to produce license and registration, he did. He obviously had no warrents; so he's not a wanted man. He just didn't agree with the cop or understand that he wasn't admitting guilt by signing for receipt of the ticket, which the genious cop could have calmly explained and put his fellow goddam American at ease! Then, when told to step out of the car, the driver does.

It is only when he turns around to face a weapon pointed at him that he reacts away from the cop. Pretty reasonable to me.

Piss poor police work, relying on violence when none is offered toward him.

Apparently, you think it's a proper response to start walk off when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back. Well, I have a little piece of news for you - that's going to result in a physical exchange with the police everytime. EVERY single time.

And just in case this is not understood, refusing to sign a ticket means the officer should arrest you. I think the officer should have told him that first, but that's the only mistake that the officer made, as I can judge from the comfort of my computer chair. Considering that guy was very beligerant and argumentative the second the officer walked up to the vehicle, I doubt it made much difference.

a potentially lethal taser

Seriously Shiloh, as I write to you using my potentially lethal computer while sitting next to my potentially lethal cell phone, I'm not sure how you could be any more dramatic.

And if you think an argument is the same as "fighting," I wonder how we are ever to reach any kind of consensus about law as it relates to the use of violence against the citizenery. For someone who is at time pretty precise with language, I'm a little suprised that you'd equate the two.

Anytime you start disobeying a police officer's orders, you're inviting all kinds of physical confrontation. Yes, that's fighting.

Apparently, you think it's a proper response to start walk off when an officer tells you to put your hands behind your back. Well, I have a little piece of news for you - that's going to result in a physical exchange with the police everytime. EVERY single time.It's not suprising to me how often people change the subjet from the correct conduct of officers to what should be correct conduct of the citizenery to avoid being abused by officers.

That way you can blame the abused for being abused, and you won't have to deal with the reality that that cop would have fired you up at a moment's notice, too. You'd start in on your, "What a second, I'm a lawyer and..." zap zap zap! 50,000 volts! Right in front of your wife and kid!

You still neglect to recognize that the driver had never refused to follow the cop's orders (other than declining to sign the ticket, which is not an order) and the officer was already pointing a weapon at him. You'd have just been cool and collective. Hell, you ought to get out of your office once in a while to learn that it's not just the cop under pressure. It's the driver, too.

But notice the only person who was assaulted. It wasn't the cop.

Seriously Shiloh, as I write to you using my potentially lethal computer while sitting next to my potentially lethal cell phone, I'm not sure how you could be any more dramatic.This comment is too stupid to have come from you. Has one of your nephews logged on using your screen name?
Anytime you start disobeying a police officer's orders, you're inviting all kinds of physical confrontation. Yes, that's fighting.See above. Either that, or just let me know not to bother discussing things like this with you. Words mean things.

This comment is too stupid to have come from you.

I can't help but be amused when you call me stupid while I'm mimicking you.

I can't help but be amused when you call me stupid while I'm mimicking you.
Fact: A taser is a "less lethal weapon." A cell phone or computer is not.

It constantly suprises me that a guy who can normally be well considered, like you, can at times dip to the asinine. Btw, I didn't call you stupid. This may be another example of your not wanting to face what is actually being said.

I suspect it is a sort of defensiveness that comes from attempting to defend the indefensible. But then, coming from someone who thinks it's okay for a cop to irresponsibly fire his weapon and kill a kid, perhaps I shouldn't be suprised at all.

Fact: A taser is a "less lethal weapon." A cell phone or computer is not.

Actually, that's not a "fact" at all. Under WI law a "weapon" is defined as "Any device or instrumentality that is manufactured or designed as a weapon, or any device or instrumentality that is used as a weapon". The law recognizes that a table lamp is a weapon when somebody uses one to attack another.

The point Leper was making, and I agree with BTW, is that to refer to a taser as "a potentially lethal weapon" over-dramatizes the argument. I would also say that if you must over-dramatize your argument, your argument needs help.


But then, coming from someone who thinks it's okay for a cop to irresponsibly fire his weapon and kill a kid, perhaps I shouldn't be suprised at all.

Frankly Shiloh, that's a gross misrepresentation, and it just makes you look desperate. :)

I participated heavily in that thread, and no one in that thread ever came close to saying, "it's okay for a cop to irresponsibly fire his weapon and kill a kid".

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]Actually, that's not a "fact" at all. Under WI law a "weapon" is defined as "Any device or instrumentality that is manufactured or designed as a weapon, or any device or instrumentality that is used as a weapon". The law recognizes that a table lamp is a weapon when somebody uses one to attack another.


Can a car or Vehicle {SUV} BE a " weapon ".?
You bet your bippy.
There have been an example of such in both Cincinnati AND Louisville.
Where a Perp took cops on a chase,and refused to get out of
the vehicle and used said vehicle to run Cops down.

Can a car or Vehicle {SUV} BE a " weapon ".?
You bet your bippy.
There have been an example of such in both Cincinnati AND Louisville.
Where a Perp took cops on a chase,and refused to get out of
the vehicle and used said vehicle to run Cops down.And you got away?

I'm impressed. :cool: :drive:

And you got away?

I'm impressed. :cool: :drive:

Yes,WE all know how supercilious EASY some are to Impress.
I managed to throw a " WE " in.
Cuz w/o the " WE " this pop stand would need some straws.

Actually, that's not a "fact" at all. Under WI law a "weapon" is defined as "Any device or instrumentality that is manufactured or designed as a weapon, or any device or instrumentality that is used as a weapon". The law recognizes that a table lamp is a weapon when somebody uses one to attack another.

The point Leper was making, and I agree with BTW, is that to refer to a taser as "a potentially lethal weapon" over-dramatizes the argument. I would also say that if you must over-dramatize your argument, your argument needs help.
It is a potentially lethal weapon, and a table lamp is not a weapon until it is used as such. So a person is not considered armed unless he is wielding something manufactured as a weapon, or he has demonstrated his willingness to use a thing not so manufactured as one. That means we cannot go assuming that random people you meet are armed, and treat them as such, by assaulting them with one before "they get to me first," even if they're demonstrating rudeness, insubordination, or even mild belligerence.

It is a potentially lethal weapon, and a table lamp is not a weapon until it is used as such.

Both items are not designed as lethal weapons, yet both can be used as such. I'd also speculate that more people have been killed by table lamps than by tasers. ;)


So a person is not considered armed unless he is wielding something manufactured as a weapon, or he has demonstrated his willingness to use a thing not so manufactured as one. That means we cannot go assuming that random people you meet are armed, and treat them as such, by assaulting them with one before "they get to me first," even if they're demonstrating rudeness, insubordination, or even mild belligerence.

You're confusing "lethal weapon" with "lethal force". It's perfectly acceptable for the police to use non-lethal force, including the use of weapons in a non-lethal way, to subdue even unarmed people who are resisting arrest.

I participated heavily in that thread, and no one in that thread ever came close to saying, "it's okay for a cop to irresponsibly fire his weapon and kill a kid".
We seem to be talking about that time when that cop fired his service revolver into the air and ended up killing a kid. If you don't agree with punishing that cop for negligence, then you're saying it's okay.

Actually, that's not a "fact" at all. Under WI law a "weapon" is defined as "Any device or instrumentality that is manufactured or designed as a weapon, or any device or instrumentality that is used as a weapon". The law recognizes that a table lamp is a weapon when somebody uses one to attack another.Are you trying to avoid the point? Why don't you go try and buy a cop-grade taser and carry it around on your hip with your "potentially lethal" cell phone and see what happens?

The point Leper was making, and I agree with BTW, is that to refer to a taser as "a potentially lethal weapon" over-dramatizes the argument. I would also say that if you must over-dramatize your argument, your argument needs help.It doesn't over dramatize anything, except to those who wish to avoid the point: any time this weapon is used, a police officer should damn well know that someone may die, and the threat situation should warrent it.


Frankly Shiloh, that's a gross misrepresentation, and it just makes you look desperate. :)Spoken by someone who backed Leper's position on that matter as well. And was wrong, as well.

I participated heavily in that thread, and no one in that thread ever came close to saying, "it's okay for a cop to irresponsibly fire his weapon and kill a kid".To excuse what occured as just an "accident" is to do exactly that.

[QUOTE=Vilepagan]
You're confusing "lethal weapon" ...QUOTE]A taser is defined as a "less lethal weapon." The cops say so themselves, for crying out loud!

It's not suprising to me how often people change the subjet from the correct conduct of officers to what should be correct conduct of the citizenery to avoid being abused by officers.

Understandable to a degree, but how can you judge the policeman's behavior without taking the behavior of the driver into account?


That way you can blame the abused for being abused, and you won't have to deal with the reality that that cop would have fired you up at a moment's notice, too. You'd start in on your, "What a second, I'm a lawyer and..." zap zap zap! 50,000 volts! Right in front of your wife and kid!

Pure speculation, and overly-dramatic speculation at that. :)


You still neglect to recognize that the driver had never refused to follow the cop's orders (other than declining to sign the ticket, which is not an order) and the officer was already pointing a weapon at him.

Untrue. The driver ignored the officer's command to put his hands behind his back, an order that would be a clue to most people that they were under arrest, and then the officer drew his taser.


But notice the only person who was assaulted. It wasn't the cop.

Would the situation be improved if both of them had been "assaulted"?

Understandable to a degree, but how can you judge the policeman's behavior without taking the behavior of the driver into account?I am. The cop drastically over reacted.
Untrue. The driver ignored the officer's command to put his hands behind his back, an order that would be a clue to most people that they were under arrest, and then the officer drew his taser.Bullshit! The cop was drawing the weapon before he'd ever completed the order! (Remember, this driver had complied with all the orders up until that point. Go back and look at the tape to see the relationship between the order and the taser-draw.)

Would the situation be improved if both of them had been "assaulted"?Yes. It would mean that we live in a society where the armed do not attack people without a real need. That'd be an improvement.

Pure speculation, and overly-dramatic speculation at that. :)
The only things I see overly dramatic here are the cop's actions, and those who defend them by saying garbage like "Oh my god! That driver might have been reaching for a potentially lethal table lamp in his pocket!":cool:

The only things I see overly dramatic here are the cop's actions, and those who defend them by saying garbage like "Oh my god! That driver might have been reaching for a potentially lethal table lamp in his pocket!":cool:
No, you're being as overly dramatic as the people who insist that a guy caught pissing in an alley is a sex offender.

We seem to be talking about that time when that cop fired his service revolver into the air and ended up killing a kid. If you don't agree with punishing that cop for negligence, then you're saying it's okay.

My argument in that thread was strictly that no one had enough evidence to say whether the cop was negligent or not. Without even looking at the thread again I can say with reasonable certainty that Leper didn't advocate letting the cop off unpunished if he was found to be negligent.

I stand by my assertion that Shiloh grossly misrepresented Leper's argument in that thread.

No, you're being as overly dramatic as the people who insist that a guy caught pissing in an alley is a sex offender.When a person fires a weapon at another person, he damn well ought to be responsible for the possible outcomes of that weapon. That's not drama. people.

But to assume the worst possible action from the driver who has no warrents and who has complied will all orders up to the point of being threatened with a weapon is crybaby drama.

negligent.
I stand by my assertion that Shiloh grossly misrepresented Leper's argument in that thread.His argument was that it was nothing more than a tragic accident; It was not negligebt or even irresponsible.

Are you trying to avoid the point? Why don't you go try and buy a cop-grade taser and carry it around on your hip with your "potentially lethal" cell phone and see what happens?

Now you're trying to avoid the point. The point is that your repeated reference to a taser as "potentially-lethal" is overly dramatic. It's no more "potentially lethal" than a nightstick...perhaps cops should have those taken away too?


It doesn't over dramatize anything, except to those who wish to avoid the point: any time this weapon is used, a police officer should damn well know that someone may die, and the threat situation should warrent it.

I completely agree. Perhaps we should be focusing on that aspect of the situation rather than the potential lethality of a taser. :)


Spoken by someone who backed Leper's position on that matter as well. And was wrong, as well.

Hey...how do you know Leper wasn't backing me up? ;)

BTW, I wasn't wrong. My argument was that no one had enough evidence to determine the officer's negligence or lack thereof, and there's no way to refute that one. :)

Now you're trying to avoid the point. The point is that your repeated reference to a taser as "potentially-lethal" is overly dramatic. It's no more "potentially lethal" than a nightstick...perhaps cops should have those taken away too?It is what it is. A weapon that is "less lethal," i.e. potential lethal. You may not like the truth, but that's what it is.

I completely agree. Perhaps we should be focusing on that aspect of the situation rather than the potential lethality of a taser. :)First it seems you'd need to accept the truth of the weapon employed before we can come to any agreement about how it should be used.

BTW, I wasn't wrong. My argument was that no one had enough evidence to determine the officer's negligence or lack thereof, and there's no way to refute that one. :)Um, the man was charged criminally for a negligent killing. (I forget the exact charge language.)

If I choose to Taz a Post,who will be the Wiser.?
Cuz a Taz IS What a Taz does.

It is what it is. A weapon that is "less lethal," i.e. potential lethal. You may not like the truth, but that's what it is.

It's possible to present "truth" in a misleading way, and that's what you did, and continue to do.


First it seems you'd need to accept the truth of the weapon employed before we can come to any agreement about how it should be used.

And you'd need to accept the truth that you are being deliberately inflammatory in your choice of language to bolster your position.


Um, the man was charged criminally for a negligent killing. (I forget the exact charge language.)

Umm, and you knew this before the investigation was complete because you're psychic?

It's possible to present "truth" in a misleading way, and that's what you did, and continue to do.I'm facing the real risks. If you can't do so, then never mind.

And you'd need to accept the truth that you are being deliberately inflammatory in your choice of language to bolster your position.Wrong. I am being deliberately honest about the risks these actions pose to the citizenary of this country. You want to minimize it. How many have to die before you'll give a damn? 5, 10, how many? 100?

Umm, and you knew this before the investigation was complete because you're psychic?No, because I am aware of the risks and responsibilities of discharging a potentially lethal weapon.