|
On July 03 2010 17:09 semantics wrote:Nope not everyone is qualified, there really are villains in officer uniforms but thankfully in this country they aren't the majority, there are also people who don't have the stomach for that kind of work and make mistakes due to it.
Thats true in every profession. The problem is you can't get away with being a shitty cop for long. And the consequences are usually bigger.
On July 03 2010 17:19 Number41 wrote:
Tasers should not be standard issue. They are very dangerous weapons, often a subject of abuse, and a crutch for lazy police.
If they are used they should be kept on the opposite side of the belt from the gun.
On the other hand, tasers deflect situations and defuse incidents before they even start. And usually arn't standard issue anyways. They cost too much to issue them to every officer.
The problem that some police have with putting the taser on the weakside is that it means you have to have it in a crossdraw rig, unless you are going to be shooting it offhanded. Crossdraw rigs are slower, and by their nature are easier for somebody facing you to access then it is for you to. Compounding that is the fact that taser holsters generally don't have the retention that firearm holsters do.
Here, tasers must be crossdrawn or on a thigh holster instead of the belt strongside.
On July 03 2010 17:19 Zidane wrote:
You would think that if you were a cop you would make damn well sure you knew which part of your belt had a GUN and which had a taser.
This. The problem is that there likely was not department policy on taser placement. Or not a good one. The other problem is that there is never enough manpower and funding to allow as much training as you want // need.
I kinda foreshadowed before, but cops rarely even touch service weapons. Then again, it can vary as well. I know a cop who has worked 4 years now and only used his gun for quals and requals. Shooting a little once a year really does not give you the familiarity you would want with a gun. Make them train more? Issue of time and money. Ammo can get expensive really fast. Police should be proficient with tools that dangerous! Yea, but radios and cars are important too.
|
On July 03 2010 17:30 semantics wrote:
Yes tazers are subject to abuse, just due to the part where if you taze someone it's pretty easy to make them complaint, vs having to hold them down or w.e while you cuff/ziptie them then they claim you used excessive force when you were arresting them. As short term tazering causes no dmg it's seen as an effective short cut to the worried some police officer.
Many individuals have died after being tased. To say it causes no damage is a bit naive. Many responsible police departments won't use tasers for just that reason. Unfortunately, laziness prevails.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 03 2010 17:30 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:19 Number41 wrote:
Tasers should not be standard issue. They are very dangerous weapons, often a subject of abuse, and a crutch for lazy police.
If they are used they should be kept on the opposite side of the belt from the gun. Yes tazers are subject to abuse, just due to the part where if you taze someone it's pretty easy to make them complaint, vs having to hold them down or w.e while you cuff/ziptie them then they claim you used excessive force when you were arresting them. As short term tazering causes no dmg it's seen as an effective short cut to the worried some police officer. Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:19 Zidane wrote:
You would think that if you were a cop you would make damn well sure you knew which part of your belt had a GUN and which had a taser. You would think you would remember that you have your wallet in your pants already as you run around in the morning almost late for work as you looking for your wallet.
What a horrifically terrible analogy to make. Is my wallet in my pants or OOPS, I just shot a guy that is laying flat on the concrete, hands behind his back, 3 officers surrounding him, one with his knee on the back of his neck, and I decide to stand up, pull my gun out, and shoot him.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 03 2010 17:38 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:33 Zidane wrote:
Actually no, because a wallet is not a GUN (caps for emphasis). but stress is stress and peoples minds are hardly reliable in terms of remembering.
Another golden post. "Stress is stress" ..... When was the last time you killed a guy because you had a big test coming up? What about when a couple people called out of work one day, and you had to work harder and stay late?
Officers that can't handle a piss of a situation like this one and not freak out and kill a guy randomly is what I was talking about.
|
Mod edit - advertising
User was banned for this post.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 03 2010 17:51 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:19 Zidane wrote:
You would think that if you were a cop you would make damn well sure you knew which part of your belt had a GUN and which had a taser. This. The problem is that there likely was not department policy on taser placement. Or not a good one. The other problem is that there is never enough manpower and funding to allow as much training as you want // need. I kinda foreshadowed before, but cops rarely even touch service weapons. Then again, it can vary as well. I know a cop who has worked 4 years now and only used his gun for quals and requals. Shooting a little once a year really does not give you the familiarity you would want with a gun. Make them train more? Issue of time and money. Ammo can get expensive really fast. Police should be proficient with tools that dangerous! Yea, but radios and cars are important too.
First of all, I would hope that officers not NEEDING to use their firearms if not necessary is a good thing... But to say that his unfamiliarity with a gun is a justification to him just grabbing anything with a trigger on it and shooting the guy before he even realizes what he grabbed as a plausible defense?? Come on man.
|
Quick Mods 
GJ, ETT. TL Mods own
|
On July 03 2010 17:55 Number41 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:30 semantics wrote:
Yes tazers are subject to abuse, just due to the part where if you taze someone it's pretty easy to make them complaint, vs having to hold them down or w.e while you cuff/ziptie them then they claim you used excessive force when you were arresting them. As short term tazering causes no dmg it's seen as an effective short cut to the worried some police officer.
Many individuals have died after being tased. To say it causes no damage is a bit naive. Many responsible police departments won't use tasers for just that reason. Unfortunately, laziness prevails.
There is a small chance of injury or death that can occur when tazing a person but it's particular to a person. Certain people are at risk to complications as a result to tazing, just like some people are at risk to having their bones broken by a person man handling them to the ground it's a matter of risk reward, tazers are a nice alternative but officers need to know when to use them.
The usage of a tazer in that situation was the wrong decision. As it is usually the policy to only use it as an alternative to a more lethal weapon such as a gun but the officer is not in a situation where the officer could be mortailly wounded such as suspects fleeing or very violent suspects who aren't exactly going to kill someone but make it really hard to arrest them and are likely to injure people in the process.
On July 03 2010 17:56 CatfooD wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 03 2010 17:30 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:19 Number41 wrote:
Tasers should not be standard issue. They are very dangerous weapons, often a subject of abuse, and a crutch for lazy police.
If they are used they should be kept on the opposite side of the belt from the gun. Yes tazers are subject to abuse, just due to the part where if you taze someone it's pretty easy to make them complaint, vs having to hold them down or w.e while you cuff/ziptie them then they claim you used excessive force when you were arresting them. As short term tazering causes no dmg it's seen as an effective short cut to the worried some police officer. Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:19 Zidane wrote:
You would think that if you were a cop you would make damn well sure you knew which part of your belt had a GUN and which had a taser. You would think you would remember that you have your wallet in your pants already as you run around in the morning almost late for work as you looking for your wallet. What a horrifically terrible analogy to make. Is my wallet in my pants or OOPS, I just shot a guy that is laying flat on the concrete, hands behind his back, 3 officers surrounding him, one with his knee on the back of his neck, and I decide to stand up, pull my gun out, and shoot him. + Show Spoiler +On July 03 2010 17:38 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:33 Zidane wrote:
Actually no, because a wallet is not a GUN (caps for emphasis). but stress is stress and peoples minds are hardly reliable in terms of remembering. Another golden post. "Stress is stress" ..... When was the last time you killed a guy because you had a big test coming up? What about when a couple people called out of work one day, and you had to work harder and stay late? Officers that can't handle a piss of a situation like this one and not freak out and kill a guy randomly is what I was talking about.
Also stress is just stress, the response is particular to a person, but the fight/flight response is the same as someone who is about to loose their job and the same someone who is about to get mugged. It's closer to a quantifiable response not a situation specific response. And it's not a matter of the officer dealing with that stress but the officer making the right, lawful decisions while stressed. So it's a matter of the training that he is receiving before hand.
it's not a pretty analogy but it's not that far off.
|
On July 03 2010 18:08 CatfooD wrote:
But to say that his unfamiliarity with a gun is a justification to him just grabbing anything with a trigger on it and shooting the guy before he even realizes what he grabbed as a plausible defense?? Come on man.
I understand that to be one of the main arguments of the defense. It is somewhat plausible; maybe not to you but to 1 in 12 jurors, perhaps. The other argument is that it had similar trigger characteristics.
I think that is the argument that will prevail on the charge of murder in the second degree.
The question will remain of voluntary or involuntary. Basically, was what the officer expected of the suspect reasonable.
|
On July 03 2010 18:16 semantics wrote:
There is a small chance of injury or death that can occur when tazing a person but it's particular to a person. Certain people are at risk to complications as a result to tazing, just like some people are at risk to having their bones broken by a person man handling them to the ground it's a matter of risk reward, tazers are a nice alternative but officers need to know when to use them.
The usage of a tazer in that situation was the wrong decision. As it is usually the policy to only use it as an alternative to a more lethal weapon such as a gun but the officer is not in a situation where the officer could be mortailly wounded such as suspects fleeing or very violent suspects who aren't exactly going to kill someone but make it really hard to arrest them and are likely to injure people in the process.
.
Well, there is a high rate of death that occurs when the tased suspect is under the influence of cocaine. Should an uncooperative suspect (on cocaine) be subject to potentially lethal force because he will not comply with direct orders? Potential death versus injury to the suspect or an officer?
Many jurisdictions have decided they can't afford the liability.
Edit: Sorry for the double post
|
On July 03 2010 18:28 Number41 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 18:16 semantics wrote:
There is a small chance of injury or death that can occur when tazing a person but it's particular to a person. Certain people are at risk to complications as a result to tazing, just like some people are at risk to having their bones broken by a person man handling them to the ground it's a matter of risk reward, tazers are a nice alternative but officers need to know when to use them.
The usage of a tazer in that situation was the wrong decision. As it is usually the policy to only use it as an alternative to a more lethal weapon such as a gun but the officer is not in a situation where the officer could be mortailly wounded such as suspects fleeing or very violent suspects who aren't exactly going to kill someone but make it really hard to arrest them and are likely to injure people in the process.
. Well, there is a high rate of death that occurs when the tased suspect is under the influence of cocaine. Should an uncooperative suspect (on cocaine) be subject to potentially lethal force because he will not comply with direct orders? Potential death versus injury to the suspect or an officer? Many jurisdictions have decided they can't afford the liability. Edit: Sorry for the double post
obvious solution have officer run with a defibrillator in their patrol car :D
Again, risk/reward and tazers are coming under fire, but frankly i wouldn't mind them as long as they were only used in certain situations and properly. In a situation where people can get hurt but not necessarily killed the tazer fits into a nice spot between the officer having to use a nightstick and a gun.
Ofc there are other things like pepper sprays which are even less of a risk of anything lethal. But it sucks to use one it's nasty shit and usually the user gets a bit of the pain of that crap during use. And you can't exactly pepper spray someone running away.
|
The fact of the matter is, the cop should not have had his gun pulled out at anytime and not had it trained on the man. For fucks sake the man was on his stomach, you should only aim a gun at something if you intent to kill it. Guns should never be used as a 'threat', their purpose is to kill.
|
I am not a big fan of watching people getting killed so I didn't watch the video. However, from what I gathered from previous posts the guy was already on the ground, so what's the point of aiming a fucking gun at him? Also, they restrained him because he was in a brawl, right? Did he have any weapon in the first place? Why the hell would you pull a gun on an unarmed person, especially when there are several cops around that person?
To me it sounds like some gun nut trying to be cool with his weapon and eventually messing up completely. I can't imagine that it was intentional. He probably pulled the trigger by accident or the gun discharged for some other reason, but it doesn't change the fact that it is plain stupid to point a gun at an unarmed person that's lying flat on the floor waiting to be cuffed.
|
Again, risk/reward and tazers are coming under fire, but frankly i wouldn't mind them as long as they were only used in certain situations and properly. In a situation where people can get hurt but not necessarily killed the tazer fits into a nice spot between the officer having to use a nightstick and a gun.
There is no guarantee that they will be used appropriately as long as humans wield them. The chance of inappropriate usage is even higher noting that a large number of police officers (any country) are lowlifes on a power trip, not the dignified, respectful and mature people that they really should be when given so much dangerous potential.
|
On July 03 2010 19:07 bostic wrote:Show nested quote +
Again, risk/reward and tazers are coming under fire, but frankly i wouldn't mind them as long as they were only used in certain situations and properly. In a situation where people can get hurt but not necessarily killed the tazer fits into a nice spot between the officer having to use a nightstick and a gun.
There is no guarantee that they will be used appropriately as long as humans wield them. The chance of inappropriate usage is even higher noting that a large number of police officers (any country) are lowlifes on a power trip, not the dignified, respectful and mature people that they really should be when given so much dangerous potential.
Right.
One could also say that when you have to deal with verbal abuse, violent resistance, thugs with firearms, you or your buddy will eventually make a mistake. And when these mistakes keep on happening, sometimes people die because of it. Police officers are only human too, and I dare say, the number that are actually as bad as you claim is very small.
|
I know the world would be a fucked up place without these pigs, but seriously they need to GTFO i remember when i was 18 sitting with some friends getting stoned in a field and we got "stormed" in on by like 10 pigs they searched the cabin found a "5" lump of tac (5 pounds worth) and proceeded to arrest me and take me back to the station, god it was a ball the size of a 2p >> fucking pigs always starting a jihad against smoking weed.
User was banned for this post.
|
On July 03 2010 17:55 Number41 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:30 semantics wrote:
Yes tazers are subject to abuse, just due to the part where if you taze someone it's pretty easy to make them complaint, vs having to hold them down or w.e while you cuff/ziptie them then they claim you used excessive force when you were arresting them. As short term tazering causes no dmg it's seen as an effective short cut to the worried some police officer.
Many individuals have died after being tased. To say it causes no damage is a bit naive. Many responsible police departments won't use tasers for just that reason. Unfortunately, laziness prevails.
If by many you mean a few that had heart problems then yes. Even more individuals have died due to chest compression(suffocation really) from an officer (or even a bouncer) sitting on top of them because they keep struggling. Most every department that can afford them uses them. Tazers are anything but a crutch for laziness.
On July 03 2010 18:28 Number41 wrote:
Should an uncooperative suspect (on cocaine) be subject to potentially lethal force because he will not comply with direct orders? Potential death versus injury to the suspect or an officer?
Yes. Mace does not work as well as one hopes it can, batons are too violent looking, tazers are the optimal solution. Or would you rather have cops just shoot them to begin with?
On July 03 2010 18:08 CatfooD wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 03 2010 17:51 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2010 17:19 Zidane wrote:
You would think that if you were a cop you would make damn well sure you knew which part of your belt had a GUN and which had a taser. This. The problem is that there likely was not department policy on taser placement. Or not a good one. The other problem is that there is never enough manpower and funding to allow as much training as you want // need. I kinda foreshadowed before, but cops rarely even touch service weapons. Then again, it can vary as well. I know a cop who has worked 4 years now and only used his gun for quals and requals. Shooting a little once a year really does not give you the familiarity you would want with a gun. Make them train more? Issue of time and money. Ammo can get expensive really fast. Police should be proficient with tools that dangerous! Yea, but radios and cars are important too. First of all, I would hope that officers not NEEDING to use their firearms if not necessary is a good thing... But to say that his unfamiliarity with a gun is a justification to him just grabbing anything with a trigger on it and shooting the guy before he even realizes what he grabbed as a plausible defense?? Come on man.
*headdesk*
Yes, officers not needing to use firearms is a good thing. Thats why the tazers you don't like exist. Do you know the use of force continuum? They nicely bridge the gap between physical action and lethal force.
Do you think that a police officer would more likely decide
"Fuck it I don't want to deal with this dude not wanting to be arrested, I'll just shoot him in the back in front of people video taping this and a whole bunch of eyewitnesses."
or
"This guy needs to stop resisting being put in handcuffs. I'll taze him so that the other officers can get him in cuffs"
On July 03 2010 18:44 NotGood- wrote:
The fact of the matter is, the cop should not have had his gun pulled out at anytime and not had it trained on the man. For fucks sake the man was on his stomach, you should only aim a gun at something if you intent to kill it. Guns should never be used as a 'threat', their purpose is to kill.
The point is he did not intend to use his gun at all. He lost situational awareness due to a lack of training (which isn't his fault but the department's) and reached for the wrong thing (department's fault for having shitty policies).
And on the contrary, display of a gun is very effective. I'm not advocating pulling a gun every time you want somebody to do something, but there is a lot you can do with a firearm short of killing somebody. You sound very much like a person with basic basic gun handling skills and knowledge. So allow me to pose a question. You exit a pool hall // rest stop (anywhere really). A bunch of people do not like you. They block your path to your car and your exit. They make you aware of their bad intentions. Do you A) draw your CCW and start firing immediately. B) Wait for them to start punching at you before you draw and start shooting, or C) display your weapon, tell them you would rather not shoot them, but that you have no desire for a physical confrontation and that they should walk away.
|
On July 03 2010 19:55 PaddyPower wrote:
I know the world would be a fucked up place without these pigs, but seriously they need to GTFO i remember when i was 18 sitting with some friends getting stoned in a field and we got "stormed" in on by like 10 pigs they searched the cabin found a "5" lump of tac (5 pounds worth) and proceeded to arrest me and take me back to the station, god it was a ball the size of a 2p >> fucking pigs always starting a jihad against smoking weed.
Cry me a fucking river.
|
Possible, though it can't really be heard what the officers are saying and what instructions they are giving him. If they're saying "you're going to be tazed, stop resisting", he might be off with manslaughter. Yeah it doesn't really look good, but there's a witness sitting right next to them that could probably give a better account than a blurry video could.
|
|
|
Oh hey guys, since a white man was racist to a black man, lets pour into the streets, scaring almost all of the businesses in the area which are mostly run by minorities and destroy their business. I mean we are only in the worst economic recession since the great depression, but those businesses wouldnt mind that we take a day and a half worth of their profits, rob their stores, and at that we waste money totaling over a million dollars to monitor and make sure these dumbasses dont kill anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
