There has been a sharp increase in the number of "cop tasers citizen" stories ever since the Andrew Meyer thing broke. 90% of it is the media trying to cash in on hysteria. However, I think we should have a thread discussing how we view what the role of police in our society is.

Here's mine. Police, like the military, are a necessary evil. Their job is to make arrests on behalf of the people, and are ultimately accountable to the people. Individual citizens have the responsibility to know their (extensive) rights in a police encounter. For instance, I'm a big believer in, if I get pulled over and a cop wants to search my car, I'll tell him no even if I don't have anything illegal on me. Why? Well, why should I let him search my car? It's not incumbent on me to give him permission.

However, I'm inclined to give police a lot of latitude when they are executing a (legitimate) arrest, in accordance with the continuum of force that's common among most, if not all, police agencies. If the police give you a lawful order, you comply. (Hell, if they give you an unlawful order, it's damn stupid to physically resist.) The proper place to fight what you believe to be improper procedure is to take it to the courts, not resist. To believe otherwise is to believe in vigilante justice, and if the law backed up such beliefs, would lead to an utterly useless police force. Their job is to make arrests so we don't have to, and uphold the law so it's not incumbent on us to do that ourselves. They are, in essence, a convenience for us, but an easily corrupted one.

I do ask that those in this thread, do not talk about individual incidents such as the rash of tasering videos making the rounds on the Internet. There are threads already for those. Let's focus only on the philosophical aspects of the role of police in our society. Anything outside of that does not belong in this thread, and will be deleted. 'Kay? :)

Moderated threads! I like it!

I agree with everything you have said, but would add that there is a continuum of action which should be employ by police long before the continuum of force is even considered, in all cases where no direct threat is offered by the citizen

I think tazer use is only justified when the officer's safety is visibly threatened. Like if the other guy is bigger, the other draws a non-lethal weapon, (if it's lethal, go fer the gun!) or if the guy is seriously resisting, not just trying to escape. If someone's really trying to hurt the officer, takes a swing, whatever, by all means, use the tazer. But if a kid is just walking away from you, lady is going nuts, or you have six officers backing you up, come on now, do your damn job without getting lazy and drawing a weapon.

lady is going nuts
What if the lady is on some sort of drug, like PCP, and you need to restrain her for her own safety? Wrestling someone on PCP is a very, very difficult and dangerous task. I don't know if a taser is truly appropriate in that situation (maybe they can't even feel that pain), but I can think of a few situations where tasering someone is safer for everyone involved than using physical force. Granted, not a lot of situations, but a few.

What if the lady is on some sort of drug, like PCP, and you need to restrain her for her own safety? Wrestling someone on PCP is a very, very difficult and dangerous task. I don't know if a taser is truly appropriate in that situation (maybe they can't even feel that pain), but I can think of a few situations where tasering someone is safer for everyone involved than using physical force. Granted, not a lot of situations, but a few.
What if, what if, what if! You don't think cops are ever trained in special situations like that?

What if, what if, what if! You don't think cops are ever trained in special situations like that?
They are, of course, but we're discussing it. :)

I think they should default to training. Next question.

I understand that tasers were introduced as a non-lethal alternative to using a gun. So, if the police officer would NOT have used his gun, then the officer should NOT use his taser. (no gender implied here, use his/her in lieu of his etc.)
Police officers often have to make split second decisions. No matter how well trained, split second decisions will occasionally be wrong. I detest the "Monday morning quarter-backing" that so often occurs in such situations. The rights or wrongs should be judged by panels that have experience of similar situations. The PCP example, I don't know. Each situation would be different and I pity the Officer having to make the decision. However, I suspect that in most such cases there would be time to await back-up. In some instances, the Officer would have to act quickly. I would not judge him, but his actions may require judgement by an appropriate panel.

I understand that tasers were introduced as a non-lethal alternative to using a gun. So, if the police officer would NOT have used his gun, then the officer should NOT use his taser. Amen.:worship:

I would just like to state for the record of someone that has been tasered and been under the influence of heavy narcotics (not at the same time) that it is almost a given you dont feel the jolt and pain from the taser when on certain types of drugs. SO the officer just keeps juicing you and juicing you... eventually he either stops,or your whole nervous system collapses

The role of the Police is to maintain law and order and when necessary investigate crimes and arrest those suspected of crimes, in accordance with legally proscribed procedures. For police to be effective they must maintain the respect and confidence of the public. Once the public becomes wary of a policeman it is much more difficult for him to do his job.
Unfortunately, too many Police officers drop into the thinking of us (the police) and them (anyone else). This seems to be particularly true in the larger cities. Some Police Forces, in this area, the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) still maintain a high reputation. OPP officers still seem to treat the general public with respect. This is not so true as say officers of the Toronto Police Dept. that seem to treat everyone as potential criminals.

The role of the Police is to maintain law and order and when necessary investigate crimes and arrest those suspected of crimes, in accordance with legally proscribed procedures. For police to be effective they must maintain the respect and confidence of the public. Once the public becomes wary of a policeman it is much more difficult for him to do his job.
Unfortunately, too many Police officers drop into the thinking of us (the police) and them (anyone else). This seems to be particularly true in the larger cities. Some Police Forces, in this area, the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) still maintain a high reputation. OPP officers still seem to treat the general public with respect. This is not so true as say officers of the Toronto Police Dept. that seem to treat everyone as potential criminals.
Interestingly enough, while the Chicago Police have a pretty bad rep, my one and only encounter with them (albeit when I was a victim) was very positive.

You weren't poor and black.

I think tazer use is only justified when the officer's safety is visibly threatened. Like if the other guy is bigger, the other draws a non-lethal weapon, (if it's lethal, go fer the gun!) or if the guy is seriously resisting, not just trying to escape. Dude, my best friend is 5'8" tall and weighs 180 pounds and he is the most dangerous man i've ever known. Size should DEFINITELY not be a consideration of visible safety. Everyone needs to be considered a possible threat to any and all police officers initially.


The only exceptions are the extremely young.

You weren't poor and black.
Probably not beligerent either.

So belligerence automatically warrants a beatdown?

So belligerence automatically warrants a beatdown?
Borg said his experience was positive. You said it was probably cause he wasnt poor or black. No where in those two posts was a beat down mentioned. So I have no idea where that came from.

*sigh* Borg said the Chicago Police Department has a bad rep. Usually this means beating the shit out of people fairly regularly, or running rackets.

Oddly enough my one and only experience with them was a good one as well. I was there on a conference. One evening I and another attendee decided to go to Old Town. It was only a short walk, so, off we went. A cruiser stopped and a couple of friendly cops asked where we going, we told them. They immediately suggested we take the bus, since the next few blocks would be dangerous for tourists. They were indeed very polite and friendly, not like the police in Santa Monica that were the exact opposite in a similar situation.
Yes we did take the bus, there and back.

*sigh* Borg said the Chicago Police Department has a bad rep. Usually this means beating the shit out of people fairly regularly, or running rackets.*sigh* I suppose you could assume anything from his comments, but you expect others to have the same supposition. :confused:

I have never had a bad personal experience with a cop of any type- military, local, state, or federal-and I'd hope that my sense of right v. wrong was not limited to personal experience.

I have an uncle who's now retired from the Ft. Worth PD and have great respect for the professionalism and duty displayed by the vast majority of peace officers. It's the idiots I object to.

*sigh* I suppose you could assume anything from his comments, but you expect others to have the same supposition. :confused:
What else could it mean?

What else could it mean?
Uneccessary traffic tickets is what comes to mind for me. I guess thats because I've never had a police officer tase me or beat me. Then again, i've never been beligerant towards an officer.

I have never had a bad personal experience with a cop of any type- military, local, state, or federal-and I'd hope that my sense of right v. wrong was not limited to personal experience.

I have an uncle who's now retired from the Ft. Worth PD and have great respect for the professionalism and duty displayed by the vast majority of peace officers. It's the idiots I object to.Seconded. However, I personally know a few officers that dont fall under the "vast" part of your statement. Mostly grift. I know of none that beat/tase people for no reason.

Uneccessary traffic tickets is what comes to mind for me.
Quite the opposite. The CPD, quite rightly, doesn't worry too much about keeping an eye on traffic, as they have bigger fish to fry. The State Police handle freeway traffic and on city streets, you probably would be wiser to worry about the occasional Cook County Sheriff than the CPD. Nappy is closer to the right track; I've heard various stories about police brutality, etc., though I suppose that sort of talk flies about any big city PD. Mainly, though, I've heard that the CPD is belligerent and unhelpful. My one experience was the opposite, though the $46 that my mugger stole got eaten by their bureaucracy.

Apologies Nappy. It appears I was way off base with MY assumptions.

I agree with the spirit of your statement, (a 'necessary evil') Borg, though not the letter.

The police serve the community, are paid by the community for that service, and perform a necessary function that the citizens at large are unable (or unwilling) to perform for themselves. (Policing their own, policing their kids, policing their neighbors, and/or policing the law-breaking jackasses at large.)

I have friends who are cops, and I have led two successful Neighborhood Watch efforts to close-down drug houses, in two different States. I feel I can speak with some measure of authority on the topic.

It is unfortunate when a cop loses control of a situation, and unfairly tasers somebody who probably didn't merit the application of that force. It is horribly unfortunate when a cop misjudges a situation, and shoots to death some poor chap who was simply reaching for his wallet.

That said, it is unfair to judge ALL cops as out-of-control, jack-booted thugs, based upon the actions and mistakes of just a few.

My hat is off to law enforcement officers and emergency first-responders. They've got a tough job, and most of them are heroes in my book.


:salute:

Uneccessary traffic tickets is what comes to mind for me. I guess thats because I've never had a police officer tase me or beat me. Then again, i've never been beligerant towards an officer.
Once again, do you think belligerence is an automatic pass for an officer to beat the fuck out of you?

Once again, do you think belligerence is an automatic pass for an officer to beat the fuck out of you?
Well, it certainly isn't going to endear you to the officer, that's for sure.

Once again, do you think belligerence is an automatic pass for an officer to beat the fuck out of you?Not in and of itself. BUt if that beligerence leads to ignoring verbal commands from the officers, then yes, you should expect some form of action to get you in line. I'd rather be tased than shot.

I've heard it called Contempt of Cop. Who knows? Maybe the last guy who got smart with that cop who just stopped you ended up pulling out a knife and trying to slit the cop's throat? Chances are, you're not gonna dissuade him from tasing you just because YOU don't consider yourself a threat to him.

Follow orders and take your complaints to court... if it goes that far. Standing on the side of the road is not the time or place to get in a cop's face while trying to convince him you're no threat to his safety.

Like HaVoK said... it's within his job description to SHOOT you if he feels threatened by you. He might get charged with using excessive force, but you'd still be dead.

That said, it is unfair to judge ALL cops as out-of-control, jack-booted thugs, based upon the actions and mistakes of just a few.

My hat is off to law enforcement officers and emergency first-responders. They've got a tough job, and most of them are heroes in my book.
QFT:cool:

Like HaVoK said... it's within his job description to SHOOT you if he feels threatened by you. He might get charged with using excessive force, but you'd still be dead.No, it's within his job description to shoot if he IS threatened by you, and then only with real physical risk. A slap doesn't justify a shooting.

No, it's within his job description to shoot if he IS threatened by you, and then only with real physical risk. A slap doesn't justify a shooting.Really not much difference to the officer is it? "Feeling" threatened as opposed to "being" threatened. Threat is just a perception anyway, right?

We're all possible threats in any given situation. It's our actions within that situation that help to aleviate any sense of threat on the part of the officer. I dont know about you, but it makes perfect sense to put someone who wears a gun for their job at ease. Just a thought. :)

No, it's within his job description to shoot if he IS threatened by you, and then only with real physical risk. A slap doesn't justify a shooting.

LOL, if I were you, Shiloh... I wouldn't go testing that assumption in real time. Slapping a cop is not only considered assault, it's a real stupid thing to do!

P.S. Don't slap his dog either. He's licensed to bite.

Not in and of itself. BUt if that beligerence leads to ignoring verbal commands from the officers, then yes, you should expect some form of action to get you in line. I'd rather be tased than shot.
Did you just imply that it's okay for a cop to shoot someone for refusing to follow a verbal order?

Did you just imply that it's okay for a cop to shoot someone for refusing to follow a verbal order?
No. I would have come right out and said that if I meant that. Really nappy, how you jump from "some form of action" to advocating shooting someone I'll never know.

I am advocating lesser actions such as handcuffing and/or tasing in particular. I think shooting someone is only a last resort in a physical confrontation.

You made the implication that if it weren't for the tazer, people would get shot, instead of tazed.

So, tazing is okay? Cop says stop, person doesn't stop, shock the shit out of him? I just don't understand where you're coming from here.

LOL, if I were you, Shiloh... I wouldn't go testing that assumption in real time. Slapping a cop is not only considered assault, it's a real stupid thing to do!
Of course it's assault! POutting your hands on someone without their permission in any way is assault. But: Force can only be in proportion to threat. That's the point.

You made the implication that if it weren't for the tazer, people would get shot, instead of tazed.

So, tazing is okay? Cop says stop, person doesn't stop, shock the shit out of him? I just don't understand where you're coming from here.Or to put a sharper edge on it: ...person doesn't stop, so fire a potentially lethal weapon at them...

You made the implication that if it weren't for the tazer, people would get shot, instead of tazed.

So, tazing is okay? Cop says stop, person doesn't stop, shock the shit out of him? I just don't understand where you're coming from here.Yes, absolutely. Shock the shit out of them. If you will not follow simple orders given in a confrontation with a police officer, and he feels your actions are threatening, then yes. I have no problem with that at all.

What if he doesn't feel your actions are threatening?

Y'all are missing the most important thing. Whether it's "OK" -- or the cop feels "THREATENED" -- or he/she is following "PROCEDURES" is immaterial in a real life situation. That logic only works when you're discussing it on a message board... or in hindsight.

In real life, anybody who's got half a brain will STOP when a cop says STOP. If you don't, you might get the hell shocked outta you, but you probably won't die. You'll live long enough to bitch about your treatment to a judge -- and hope he agrees with you. Chances are, you'll be on videotape, so smile pretty for the camera while you're flopping around there on the ground!

;)
SMW

Oh hush, and let the boys have their fun, k toots?

Oh hush, and let the boys have their fun, k toots?

That does it. I'm callin the cops. Expect your doorbell to ring in the next 30 minutes. Go ahead and assume the position right now.

:mad:
SMW

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]Y'all are missing the most important thing. Whether it's "OK" -- or the cop feels "THREATENED" -- or he/she is following "PROCEDURES" is immaterial in a real life situation. That logic only works when you're discussing it on a message board... or in hindsight.

In real life, anybody who's got half a brain will STOP when a cop says STOP. If you don't, you might get the hell shocked outta you, but you probably won't die. You'll live long enough to bitch about your treatment to a judge -- and hope he agrees with you. Chances are, you'll be on videotape, so smile pretty for the camera while you're flopping around there on the ground!


But things have changed drastically in certain big city urban blights.
Like in Cincinnati's Butchertown area,because of a few cases where the
cops shot at an unarmed man,the city council will side with
the Perps right at trial.Especially if dead.
That means the Cops have to be real cautious when they unzip their
firearm and when they shoot it.
Kinda like in the movie - Serpico - and those dreaded Internal Affair
fellas.

Go ahead and assume the position right now.
Oh you'd like that, wouldn't you?

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]That does it. I'm callin the cops. Expect your doorbell to ring in the next 30 minutes. Go ahead and assume the position right now.

I believe under the new rules,Flirting must take place only
in daylight.Once nite falls,so must the bloomers,and then ta Bed.

I believe under the new rules,Flirting must take place only
in daylight.Once nite falls,so must the bloomers,and then ta Bed.
Yeah, what he said. Off to bed with ya!

But things have changed drastically in certain big city urban blights. Like in Cincinnati's Butchertown area,because of a few cases where the cops shot at an unarmed man,the city council will side with the Perps right at trial. Especially if dead. That means the Cops have to be real cautious when they unzip their firearm and when they shoot it. Kinda like in the movie - Serpico - and those dreaded Internal Affair fellas.

Cops in Dallas have a fairly good reputation and it seems to me, a pretty free hand to do whatever they think is necessary at the time without much pressure from the city council or internal affairs... or the court system.

Not long ago, a man was creating havoc in a neighborhood and when the police told him to drop what he was holding, he ran toward one of them with the object in his hand, and his partner shot him... dead. Later, the news reported he was holding a hairbrush. There was an inquiry, but that's the last I've heard about it. Citizens here seem to be more concerned with stopping rampant crime than worrying about the rights of criminals. I'd suggest anyone who'd consider challenging a cop pick someplace else besides Dallas.

Esp considering a prominent woman doctor was recently beaten and robbed on a popular, yuppy-ville walking trail in the inner city. That one got the attention of the citizens on the 'good' side of town.

;)
SMW

Yeah, what he said. Off to bed with ya!

Sheeeeeeesh.I hate to hear how you order a nice meal from
like say.... Tavern on the Green.

Yeah, what he said. Off to bed with ya!

Gawd, are you still here? Don't you have a curfew or something???

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]Cops in Dallas have a fairly good reputation and it seems to me, a pretty free hand to do whatever they think is necessary at the time without much pressure from the city council or internal affairs... or the court system.

Not long ago, a man was creating havoc in a neighborhood and when the police told him to drop what he was holding, he ran toward one of them with the object in his hand, and his partner shot him... dead. Later, the news reported he was holding a hairbrush. There was an inquiry, but that's the last I've heard about it. Citizens here seem to be more concerned with stopping rampant crime than worrying about the rights of criminals. I'd suggest anyone who'd consider challenging a cop pick someplace else besides Dallas.

Esp considering a prominent woman doctor was recently beaten and robbed on a popular, yuppy-ville walking trail in the inner city. That one got the attention of the citizens on the 'good' side of town.

All it takes is 1 or 2 instances where a cop with a trigger finger
shoots and kills a perp with a long rap sheet who isn't packin.
Just makin like he has a gun and eludes on a chase.
ACLU comes in and Sues the city,The cop is terminated,faces jail
time and other cops become afraid to pull their weapons.

Cops in Dallas have a fairly good reputation and it seems to me, a pretty free hand to do whatever they think is necessary at the time without much pressure from the city council or internal affairs... or the court system.

Not long ago, a man was creating havoc in a neighborhood and when the police told him to drop what he was holding, he ran toward one of them with the object in his hand, and his partner shot him... dead. Later, the news reported he was holding a hairbrush. There was an inquiry, but that's the last I've heard about it. Citizens here seem to be more concerned with stopping rampant crime than worrying about the rights of criminals. I'd suggest anyone who'd consider challenging a cop pick someplace else besides Dallas.

Esp considering a prominent woman doctor was recently beaten and robbed on a popular, yuppy-ville walking trail in the inner city. That one got the attention of the citizens on the 'good' side of town.

;)
SMW
You know, I bet that reputation would change in a hurry if they start tazering pregnant women like it was going out of style.

You know, I bet that reputation would change in a hurry if they start tazering pregnant women like it was going out of style.

What a stupid thing to say, Nappy. I'm sure it would change if they tasered unruly babies, too.

Man, what a stretch. Are you on mind-altering substances tonight, or what?

:@@:
SMW

P.S. I'll give ya this much, though. I'm going to bed. Nighty nite!

As always you fail to get the point.

Hey I don't know about you people, but I've been hit by a hairbrush.
It hurts.
I would've shot the guy too.

:smile2:

Hey I don't know about you people, but I've been hit by a hairbrush.
It hurts.

some guys pay extra for that:o

[HaVoK] made the implication that if it weren't for the tazer, people would get shot, instead of tazed.
You're both right, in a way.
Non-lethal force and lethal force are absolutley not interchangable. If someone warrants lethal force it almost always means there is a dangerous, exigent circumstance and to not stop him in the most effective way possible endangers the officer and the public.

Tazers have indirectly saved lives by stopping situations that may have eventually escalated into lethal-force scenarios. This is a sort of hidden statistic that can't be proven.


Part of the public's negative perception of police stems from what would be called "profiling" if the police were engaging in it.

How many people have never had a negative experience with the police but have a negative view of them? How many people on these fora have neither witnessed nor engaged in a physical confrontation with them, but believe they are too quick to get physical, based on others' stories. One tasering on YouTube has the whole country talking.

Every job has a-holes. We have them too. Not as many as you think.
But they get a lot of attention.

You're both right, in a way.
Non-lethal force and lethal force are absolutley not interchangable. If someone warrants lethal force it almost always means there is a dangerous, exigent circumstance and to not stop him in the most effective way possible endangers the officer and the public.

Tazers have indirectly saved lives by stopping situations that may have eventually escalated into lethal-force scenarios. This is a sort of hidden statistic that can't be proven.


Part of the public's negative perception of police stems from what would be called "profiling" if the police were engaging in it.

How many people have never had a negative experience with the police but have a negative view of them? How many people on these fora have neither witnessed nor engaged in a physical confrontation with them, but believe they are too quick to get physical, based on others' stories. One tasering on YouTube has the whole country talking.

Every job has a-holes. We have them too. Not as many as you think.
But they get a lot of attention.

Welcome back, Brooks. You were missed!

:)
SMW

You're both right, in a way.
Non-lethal force and lethal force are absolutley not interchangable. If someone warrants lethal force it almost always means there is a dangerous, exigent circumstance and to not stop him in the most effective way possible endangers the officer and the public.

Tazers have indirectly saved lives by stopping situations that may have eventually escalated into lethal-force scenarios. This is a sort of hidden statistic that can't be proven.


Part of the public's negative perception of police stems from what would be called "profiling" if the police were engaging in it.

How many people have never had a negative experience with the police but have a negative view of them? How many people on these fora have neither witnessed nor engaged in a physical confrontation with them, but believe they are too quick to get physical, based on others' stories. One tasering on YouTube has the whole country talking.

Every job has a-holes. We have them too. Not as many as you think.
But they get a lot of attention.Excellent post.

How many people have never had a negative experience with the police but have a negative view of them?

I don't know. I doubt if you do either.

But given how compliant and obedient the populace is --in general-- in this country and how utterly devoted the herd is to the notion of *God and Country* and how quick they are to prostrate themselves before both civil and religious authority figures and to revere and obey them, I'd guess that would be a fairly low number.

How many people on these fora have neither witnessed nor engaged in a physical confrontation with them, but believe they are too quick to get physical, based on others' stories. [/quick]

Errrm.......maybe 5 or 6.....?

[QUOTE=Brooks]One tasering on YouTube has the whole country talking.

While a half dozen people talking on a bulletin board about police possibly over reacting has you coming back to give all sorts of reasons why police repeatedly tasering people --some of them whom could have been easily handled physically-- is no big deal.

I recently saw a 5 minute video in which a 150 pound woman, so drunk she was disoriented and wobbling, was repeatedly tasered while she was laying on the ground. I guess the official police position (IOW, the bullshit excuse) of the police would be ----"Well, ya see, we had to use the taser on her. She might have manhandled us and injured us if we'd tried to apprehend her without first rendering her immobile with a few 30,000 volt shocks".

:rolleyes:

Brooks is back! We've been having a field day of arguments about the police here... It'll be good to have your opinion on them. :)

Also, I have had what I would call negative experiences with police, but I do not have a negative view of them.

Cool you're back, Brooks!

Brooks, I believe that policing has a greater percentage of asshole fucks than most other professions. I think the power draws them to it, holding a weapon, telling people what to do. I think the profession is inherently going to attract more of society's fucksticks than usual. I think these people become very adept at hiding their misanthropic ways and cozying up to their superiors. I believe in the maxim, "Power corrupts."

I think that giving tazers to cops invites abuse in a way that giving them firearms doesn't. The rules of conduct keep creeping back and creeping back. Pretty soon you have cops getting caught on Youtube enforcing discipline with a tazer instead of good police practice.

I'm not against the tazer. I'm against the tazer being given to every officer with a badge. There should be a great deal of training involved in entrusting an officer with something so easily abused.

Brooks, I believe that policing has a greater percentage of asshole fucks than most other professions. I think the power draws them to it, holding a weapon, telling people what to do. I think the profession is inherently going to attract more of society's fucksticks than usual. I think these people become very adept at hiding their misanthropic ways and cozying up to their superiors. I believe in the maxim, "Power corrupts."
I agree with this, but I think that making generalizations about an arbitrary police officer P is just as much of a fuckstick move.

I think that enough information is communicated in most videos to make a judgment as to whether a police officer was justified in using a tazer or not. And it's not a generalization if it only applies to one cop.

Welcome back Brooks, I hope you are well.
Happy Holidays!

You're both right, in a way.
Non-lethal force and lethal force are absolutley not interchangable. If someone warrants lethal force it almost always means there is a dangerous, exigent circumstance and to not stop him in the most effective way possible endangers the officer and the public.

My problem with tasers is how their usage has creeped from stopping some dangerous person whom you would otherwise have to use lethal force on, to being used just to force compliance from some stubborn and cranky old lady who wouldn't move when she was told.

In my personal opinion, police officers and private "officers" have become extremely liberal in the usage of their tasers. They don't just use them to "stop badguys" anymore, they use them to force compliance from the citizenry now too. That subtle change has had obvious effects, one of which being an increase in the instances of police officers being caught on tape abusing their power with their tasers.


Tazers have indirectly saved lives by stopping situations that may have eventually escalated into lethal-force scenarios. This is a sort of hidden statistic that can't be proven.

(emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, but I don't believe in ghosts, bigfoot, the loch ness monster or phantom statistics. Frankly, in my opinion, the sheer number of documented cases of tasers being misused outweighs any benefit to society at large from the extremely rare cases of a taser being used to stop some rampaging psycho-killer.

Do you believe that the situation with the kid at the University of Florida could have escalated into a lethal-force scenario if they hadn't used their tasers on him?



How many people have never had a negative experience with the police but have a negative view of them? How many people on these fora have neither witnessed nor engaged in a physical confrontation with them, but believe they are too quick to get physical, based on others' stories. One tasering on YouTube has the whole country talking.

I have had personal experiences with the police abusing their power on several occasions. For example, when I was a senior in high school the police raided a party of 14-18 year olds at a house a friend of mine was renting. This was years ago, long before tasers were in such wide usage as they are today. The police came into the house "swat" style, I was sitting on the framed-in porch that attached to the house and I looked up and saw the police as they were coming up the front lawn. They kicked in the front door, guns drawn and started pushing everyone to the ground and hitting some people who weren't moving fast enough. Everyone literally froze like deer in headlights, myself included. As they started shoving people roughly to the ground and putting their guns in people's faces, the girl I was on the couch with and I just slid down to the ground and stayed there until it was over, but I witnessed an officer step on and lean on, the neck of a 14 year old friend of mine because he looked up. I gave a deposition for him later when his parents sued. The police claimed that they had an "inside source" who told them it was some huge drug deal, instead of just a party with a bunch of kids. It was a bunch of kids sitting around a house, admittedly drinking underage, but nobody was driving anywhere and nobody there at any time posed the slightest threat. There were no drugs there, not even a small amount on anyone's person.

In my opinion all it would have taken is a little surveillance and maybe going to the front door on a "noise complaint" would have told them that it was nothing more than a group of friends hanging out, playing euchre and drinking a keg.

I understand in retrospect that I don't really blame the officers who were told they were going into the midst of a huge drug deal with supposedly big scary drug dealers and who were all pumped up and expecting something totally different, but the unfortunate reality was that on that day I witnessed a bunch of good, innocent kids being the recipients of some pretty brutal treatment at the hands of police officers. Some of the people who were at that party vehemently HATE the police still to this day. I do not. I definitely do blame the people who sent those officers in there with such grossly bad information when the correct information could have been so easily obtained.

Anyway, the point of that rant is that although you seem skeptical of it, some people do have legitimate reasons for disliking and distrusting the police, because they wield an incredible amount of power that a lot of people feel they wield too liberally while I am sure some would claim they are too conservative and should dispense with these silly tasers and just shoot anyone who gives them any guff.

The police aren't just individuals, they are representatives of something larger and the way people treat them is also effected by how they feel about that larger institution.

Thanks to the conservative meme that the government = bad, there is a large general negative feeling towards the government as a whole and thus against police officers by extension.


Every job has a-holes. We have them too. Not as many as you think.
But they get a lot of attention.

Not every asshole gets a gun, a taser and the legal authority to use them on other people.

They get a lot of attention because they wield a tad bit more power than your average waitress or customer service rep.

If the guy at Starbucks wanted to be an asshole to me, he might treat me rudely or give me change in coins, but if a police officer or even a security guard with a taser wants to be an asshole to me, he can shock me with 50,000 volts of electricity.

I find that difference and how often it is happening these days to be quite newsworthy.

Just my $.02

db
:grouphug:

Wow.

I have had personal experiences with the police abusing their power on several occasions. For example, when I was a senior in high school the police raided a party of 14-18 year olds at a house a friend of mine was renting. This was years ago, long before tasers were in such wide usage as they are today. The police came into the house "swat" style, I was sitting on the framed-in porch that attached to the house and I looked up and saw the police as they were coming up the front lawn. They kicked in the front door, guns drawn and started pushing everyone to the ground and hitting some people who weren't moving fast enough. Everyone literally froze like deer in headlights, myself included. As they started shoving people roughly to the ground and putting their guns in people's faces, the girl I was on the couch with and I just slid down to the ground and stayed there until it was over, but I witnessed an officer step on and lean on, the neck of a 14 year old friend of mine because he looked up. I gave a deposition for him later when his parents sued. The police claimed that they had an "inside source" who told them it was some huge drug deal, instead of just a party with a bunch of kids. It was a bunch of kids sitting around a house, admittedly drinking underage, but nobody was driving anywhere and nobody there at any time posed the slightest threat. There were no drugs there, not even a small amount on anyone's person.
Did they have a warrant? If not, how the hell was it they could barge into the house? That's an obvious Fourth Amendment violation, even if there was some huge drug deal going on.

But given how compliant and obedient the populace is....True. But the situations in which a police officer may need to use force do not involve a part of the population that is being compliant and obedient at that moment. I hate this expression, but "it's a cop thing, you wouldn't understand".

Napsterbater: "I believe that policing has a greater percentage of asshole fucks than most other professions."There may be some validity to that but it also attracts some unbelievably good people who do things for strangers that other people would never consider doing.
Would you put your mouth on a dead stranger's when there's a possibility he's going to throw up?
If someone does that for your mother you won't think he's such an "____ ____".

Dharma: ".... tasers being misused outweighs any benefit to society at large...."
I have no proof to doubt you on this. It may be true.
The supposition I was making (that it has stopped situations before they became lethal) was based on situations that I have seen escalate. It's just a theory, but one that most police would probably agree with based on what they have seen.

Dharma: Do you believe that the situation with the kid at the University of Florida could have escalated into a lethal-force scenario if they hadn't used their tasers on him?
I wasn't there so I couldn't "feel" the crowd. But when it starts to get ugly you have to do something in a hurry because the crowd will almost always turn against the police.
From what I saw it looked unnecessary, but I wasn't there.

A couple of years ago a woman in a Chicago park yelled "you suck and those boys died" to President Clinton (a reference to Mogadishu). She was immediately arrested. I agreed with that. The reason being was that the potential to entrap the President in a riot outweighed her free-speech at that moment.


PS - I've never seen a Taser used and have actually never seen one in person. They're not standard issue here.

Not to hijack.... but...

Welcome back Brooks!

Originally Posted by Freethinker
But given how compliant and obedient the populace is....

True. But the situations in which a police officer may need to use force do not involve a part of the population that is being compliant and obedient at that moment. I hate this expression, but "it's a cop thing, you wouldn't understand".

Fair enough.

I'm sure here are many aspects of having to control unruly people that I have little awareness of.

But i was specifically talking about the numerous incidents that I have seen on video where the police used vastly more force than was required.......using it on people who were NOT threatening the police with any sort of harm.

The video of the lady who'd been drinking, for example. She was less of a threat to any police officer than a 3 week old kitten. She could barely stand.

They want to arrest her? Fine.

They want to handcuff her and take her to jail? Fine. (although I don't know what she was doing that would have warranted her being arrested and handcuffed, but i digress)

But to repeatedly taser her just after she had fallen down was unconscionable and inhuman.

The point of contention here seems to be you saying -- "Well yeah, there's a few cops like that".

My point is --judging from these vids-- that there are far too many who are like that and that far too many of them (it seems to me) get off on inflicting pain on people they happen to not like or that they have no respect for as a human being.

Come on everyone!!! Let's sing along with Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, all of NWA, Freethinker, Dharma, and the whole gang!!!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b392/jteresi/fuck_the_police1.gif
http://www.hiphopkemp.de/catalog/images/B000025D6E.03.LZZZZZZZ.gif


And here's just a funny picture I saw:

http://wasteland-drifter.co.uk/news/wp-content/files/images/sma06.gif

Napsterbater: "I believe that policing has a greater percentage of asshole fucks than most other professions."There may be some validity to that but it also attracts some unbelievably good people who do things for strangers that other people would never consider doing.
Would you put your mouth on a dead stranger's when there's a possibility he's going to throw up?
If someone does that for your mother you won't think he's such an "____ ____".
I would agree, but at the same time, the truth of the former means we as people need to have some kind of recourse to rein in the abusive nature of that first bunch. Relying on the police to police their own isn't cutting it.

The point of contention here seems to be you saying -- "Well yeah, there's a few cops like that".
My point is --judging from these vids-- that there are far too many who are like that.....In the sense that one cop behaving that way is too many you are certainly correct.
On the other hand I heard an analogy a few years ago: If you lived on a desert island and the only thing you knew about the mainland was through newspapers, you'd never get into an automobile because all you knew about them was that people always get killed in them.
Similarly, nationwide each day police officers work roughly one million tours. On a percentage basis what really constitutes "far too many" bad ones?

I have with COPS is that they are traditionally always at their
worse,when in a group.Like the great classic :
- The Ox-Bow Incident - {1943}
Cops are pretty cool,calm and rational,UNTIL a group of them
show up at a crime scene.Then that male adrenaline and
Macho man persona seems to take over.Like they're all in a
pissing contest.
Does Rodney King,ring-a-dingy.?
Of course King was obstinately refusing arrest,especially after
leading Cops on a lenghty high speed chase thru L.A.
BTW...there were 2 other men in the back of Kings car who behaved.
King went to Trial,and Rodney { 'Why can't we all just get along ' }
was awarded almost $4 million.I remember it wasn't too long before
King was again in the news for trouble.
But,I have real issues with the show COPS.It actually portrays cops
in a bad light.But,therein again,they usually deserve the portrait
they paint of themselves.Especially when en masse.

Cops are pretty cool,calm and rational,UNTIL a group of them show up at a crime scene.Then that male adrenaline and
Macho man persona seems to take over.
Does Rodney King,ring-a-dingy.?

Post-car chase (sometimes unnecessary) beatings result from the cops travelling over 100 MPH, not knowing who or what weapons are in the car, and being very angry, very scared and very wary.
After risking their lives they rush out of their cars and have 1.5 seconds to stop the subject(s) and assess the situation.

The resulting adrenalin has nothing to do with the fact that the police are in a group.

In the sense that one cop behaving that way is too many you are certainly correct.

Again, we come to the bone of contention.

This is about something involving far more than *one*policeman.

Wouldn't it be reasonable that a rational person might be led to surmise that for every incident of police brutality that does get taped, there might be several times that many that do not get caught on video....?

IOW, it would seem to me that seeing a handful of videos, with maybe 15 or 20 police in them, that show police brutalizing people and/or behaving badly in some way would lead to the conclusion, by extrapolation, that there are quite a number of incidents (to put it mildly) like this happening throughout America.

By that same logic, considering there are tens of thousands of police involved incidents per day, would one not conclude that the vast majority of police interventions are handled in a professional manner?

Same could be said about; child molestation, spousal abuse, cases of neglect, or any other "frailty" of the human vs. human interaction. There will always be people that operate outside the realms of decency (whether consistantly or only based on specific circumstance). Therefore there will always be issues such as these. To assume that all law enforcement agents will always act properly and within limits would also assume that all humans will do the same. Impossible theory.

By that same logic, considering there are tens of thousands of police involved incidents per day, would one not conclude that the vast majority of police interventions are handled in a professional manner?

Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally.

Why anyone would conclude any differently I cannot imagine.

No one here has made even the slightest hint or suggestion that the vast majority of police involved incidents are not handled in a very capable and professional manner.

There will always be people that operate outside the realms of decency (whether consistantly or only based on specific circumstance). Therefore there will always be issues such as these.

No kidding?

Thanks for that brilliant insight.

To assume that all law enforcement agents will always act properly and within limits would also assume that all humans will do the same. Impossible theory.

Yet another non sequitur.

If anyone had made any suggestion or had indicated in any way that they are assuming that **all law enforcement agents will always act properly and within limits** you might have a point. But no one has.

You're like the person who overhears someone else say -"I like cats"- and says back to that person --"Hey!, why do you hate dogs so much??!?"

Dharma: ".... tasers being misused outweighs any benefit to society at large...."
I have no proof to doubt you on this. It may be true.
The supposition I was making (that it has stopped situations before they became lethal) was based on situations that I have seen escalate. It's just a theory, but one that most police would probably agree with based on what they have seen.

I am sure that it does happen that a taser will stop a situation that would have actually escalated to a lethal scenario, but what concerns me are all the situations caught on tape that were not in danger of becoming lethal or where there are clear alternatives but people get tasered anyway. I am seeing way too many situations that appear to be nothing more than shocking citizens into compliance for my taste. If that many are being caught on tape, how many must be happening where there isn't someone with a camera handy?

I understand the feelings of those who say we shouldn't second guess these people because they have a hard job, but I also understand the logic of those who say that these people are given enormous power over life and death and they need to have oversight or abuse of that power will become rampant, trust in officers will justifyably become nill and everything will break down.

1. ...but what concerns me are all the situations caught on tape that were not in danger of becoming lethal ....
2. I am seeing way too many situations that appear to be nothing more than shocking citizens into compliance for my taste.
3. I understand the feelings of those who say we shouldn't second guess these people because they have a hard job,
1. The video of the highway patrolman has some aspects to it that no one considers.
- He can't see into the vehicle he has pulled over so he doesn't know about any weapons or other passengers that may be inside. The longer this driver remains belligerent, the more danger the trooper is in since he can't control the vehicle.
If there actually were someone or something dangerous in a vehicle the driver would behave exactly how that guy behaved. Distract the officer, yell, don't listen and keep the officer's back to the vehicle. At that point the officer has to control the driver to protect himself. Of course the odds of the worst-case-scenario are very slim, but the officer wants to survive and can't take a chance.
These state troopers are totally on their own with backup sometimes twenty to twenty-five minutes away. In their situation the tazer is probably like a partner.


2. I still don't understand the "way too many" phrase. As a percentage of the officers who hit the streets each day (about a million) the incidents are miniscule.

3. That's funny you should say that because I don't understand people who say police shouldn't be second guessed. Police should be scrutinized very closely. The vast majority of police officer would agree because they don't want want to work with an idiot or have to deal with a citizen who's still angry from his last police interaction.
When police were among the first to be random drug tested, the ACLU was against it, the unions were against it and much of the public was against it. The police officers themselves were the only ones not complaining.

Police are not averse to scrutiny. What they don't need is knee-jerk conclusions and second-guessing by those not considering all the facts.

If there actually were someone or something dangerous in a vehicle the driver would behave exactly how that guy behaved.
Hm. That's interesting. Don't know if I believe it, but I can see the logic.

I am sure that it does happen that a taser will stop a situation that would have actually escalated to a lethal scenario, but what concerns me are all the situations caught on tape that were not in danger of becoming lethal or where there are clear alternatives but people get tasered anyway. I am seeing way too many situations that appear to be nothing more than shocking citizens into compliance for my taste. If that many are being caught on tape, how many must be happening where there isn't someone with a camera handy?

I understand the feelings of those who say we shouldn't second guess these people because they have a hard job, but I also understand the logic of those who say that these people are given enormous power over life and death and they need to have oversight or abuse of that power will become rampant, trust in officers will justifyably become nill and everything will break down.Dostoy

Going over what you juts writ hears,it appears abundantly clear that
you suffer Wordiness.You need to develop a more clear & precise
approach to explaining you're POV,with not nearly as many words.
You could never write copy for a Newspaper with such a gluttons
use of words.It even looks cluttered.Like one a them Clean-up
the messy home TV shows.

" Then I should have chosen a career for myself,I should have been a sluggard and a glutton, not a simple one,but,for instance,one with sympathies for everything sublime and beautiful. "

-- Dostoyevsky

1. The video of the highway patrolman ...

Which one?

In their situation the tazer is probably like a partner.

Then they should have a partner.



2. I still don't understand the "way too many" phrase.

It is an opinion.
I means I think it happens too often.



3. That's funny you should say that because I don't understand people who say police shouldn't be second guessed.

I said I understand their feelings, I did not say I agreed with them.



Police are not averse to scrutiny.

You haven't met some of the police officers that I have.
Some of them are pretty damn averse to scrutiny.

1. Which one?
2. Then they should have a partner.
3. It is an opinion.
I means I think it happens too often.
4. You haven't met some of the police officers that I have.
Some of them are pretty damn averse to scrutiny.
1. This one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ok5W-ZGjDxo
I thought this was what we were specifically discussing.
While most people would see this as an overreaction, police officers in this situation would wonder why this guy is acting like a distraction and why he is intent on getting back to the car.
To not consider this would be a big risk on the officer's part.

2. Every trooper in the country would definitely agree with you.
All you have to do is convince the governors, the legislators and the taxpayers.

3. That's still a bit of a weak answer since one unnecessary tasering is too many.
It's one of those statements that sounds profound on the surface but is just stating the obvious. Much like when a politician comments on an ongoing problem by saying "The administration hasn't done enough to........"

4. The hundreds I have worked with over the last twenty-six years feel very differently than the "some" you spoke to.
I think if you spoke to them in more depth you'd find that they welcome the scrutiny if it's done fairly.