granny gets tasered. when will people learn?

Status
Not open for further replies.
for the moment the dept. is supporting the cops actions.

some of you might want to get a grip or you could find yourself in this same situation some day.

the cop wanted to handcuff her. that is not an unreasonable demand. if so, that is what courts are for at a later date.

the woman got what she deserved. the cop can't spend all day negotiating with the woman because she won't comply. she is obstructing justice by refusing to comply.

i hope she enjoyed herself.
 
editted because I re-read the story to see that she was in the station. Still need more info on why she was tazed. Looks really bad though
 
Did anyone bother to read what was going on? She pled no contest to domestic violence and resisting arrest. The video doesn't really show anything other than the tazing.

What can we gather from the video and subsequent charges? The officer was attempting to handcuff the woman. She resisted. Rather than lay hands on the lady, he chose to taze her. Any other facts? Did I miss anything else?

That being said, uh, did he seriously just taze a little old lady that he could have just put on the ground and cuffed? I don't know. What are the officer's options? The woman is under arrest for domestic violence. She must be cuffed, searched and transported for booking. She does not comply with the officer's orders to turn around (or whatever he says in order to cuff her). His options are, physical force (hands on type stuff), OC pepper spray, tazer, baton or firearm. The short clip does not show what level of resistance she puts up prior to being tazed. Did she simply not comply verbally? Or did she use physical means to resist? Which level of force did the officer respond with first? Did he try to hold her down first? We don't know. All we know is that a lady got tazed. Just because she's old doesn't mean she's not under arrest and must comply with a lawful order. (and for you that say that you won't comply: well if you're under arrest, and you don't comply when I tell youto turn around and place your hands behind your back, just be prepared, because i will arrest you using the least amount of force necessary)

The link to the story and the video within that story provide none of these answers. But I will agree that it does look bad.
Click to expand...

Well said.

But it won't really matter to the cop-bigots. Cops=bad, bad=cops. Don't confuse them with facts. Their minds are already made up.
 
Cop=Bad?
How do some come to that conclusion?

I'd suggest it comes from posts such as these:
the cop wanted to handcuff her. that is not an unreasonable demand. if so, that is what courts are for at a later date.
Click to expand...
No. The Courts SHOULD not be the First And Only Line of Defense IF excessive force was used. Noto Bene: I have NOT claimed excessive force as I do not have enough info. But this IS an incident worthy of following.

the woman got what she deserved. the cop can't spend all day negotiating with the woman because she won't comply.
Click to expand...
Ummmm, could he spend 30 seconds on an elderly EMPLOYER? Again, not saying he had choices, pending further info; but you're clearly concluding he had none. (I'll be interested to see just how many times she actually was juiced....if she's substantially lying about it being multiple, she's unworthy of my interest or sympathy; if she's substantially correct, the officer is no longer an officer...he's a thug worthy of nothing more than my contempt and vilification.....I, too, have a Mother.)

she is obstructing justice by refusing to comply.
Click to expand...
Of course she was. She's a dangerous criminal, obstructing an officer in a very dangerous situation (A Station House Arrest) and she had to be "put down" for his safety and hers. Nothing to see here, people; let's move along now :rolleyes:
Rich
 
This is only the thin end of the wedge!!!!!!!!!

Granny today ,....... confiscation of your guns tomorrow?

New Orleans?

Divide and Conquer...............!


Out of Here.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke. :(
 
Jeff-
Cool your jets.

There was nothing childish about my remarks. I simply pointed up how MY jury is out and YOURS has already brought in a finding of "Nothing to see here".

Get over it or debate it....sensibly, without attacking the messenger.

Don't like stories like this (which YOU brought into this forum)? Then work to change mentalities on both sides of the divide. Don't lecture us about that which any free citizen finds abhorrent: "If you fail to comply, you deserve the result.".
Rich
 
Rich said:

Ummmm, could he spend 30 seconds on an elderly EMPLOYER?
Click to expand...

Source on time frame Officer delt with subject before deploying Taser?
confused.gif
 
OK. I had time to re-read, think about, and discuss this with my partner. First off I want to respond to this comment

Cops need to remember who they are policing, the same people that are paying their salaries. Piss us off and you may not have a job.
Click to expand...
I pay taxes too, so I view myself as self employed. Or how bout, can i get a raise then? This above statement is entirely ignorant.

Now, on to the tape. What we saw:
1. officer attempts to handcuff lady while she is sitting in the Police station to "check on her grand-daughter....who is filing domestic abuse charges against her." Why is the officer hand cuffing her? I conclude she must have been under arrest. If this is the case, the officer must search her, which is only done after a suspect is handcuffed. However, it does raise questions since she was already in the police station. So why handcuff her? Well, perhaps it is just to search her. Or perhaps she must be transported to another part of the building or another building entirely. I have no idea, these are just speculations.

2. The woman resists the officer's attempt to handcuff her. Now she is resisting arrest. The officer has choices as to how to proceed, all along the force continuum. He can use what we call "light hands" which is a controling type of hand to hand combat such as arm locks. He can use OC pepper spray. He can use the tazer. He can use strikes ("hard hands"). He can use a baton. He can use a firearm. The goal is to use the minimum amount of force necessary to affect the arrest while also minimizing the risk of injury to himself or her.

3. The woman is tazed. Contrary to what the article and news anchor say, you cannot tell how many times the woman is actually shocked. At least once, which resulted in her falling from the bench to the floor. Now, since there is no sound to the video, it is difficult to tell if the woman is tazed either before or after the one that sends her to the ground. However, after looking at the video again, it seems that the first time she was tazed sent her to the floor. It is unclear if she is tazed after that.

Were the other police of the station just standing by watching this go on?
Click to expand...
I don't know. Do you? It looked like it happened pretty quickly. And I'm sure there is more to the video that is not being shown.

And if the cop says "Strip naked, bend over and spread 'em" during a traffic stop, what then?
Click to expand...
You say, "not without my lawyer." Then if they proceed, you make sure they do it in front of the cruiser cam, THEN make sure your lawyer gets the footage. Or you can do other things, which I'm sure you're intelligent enough to figure out.

and charged with assault on the elderly,
Click to expand...
No such animal. It's just assault or aggrivated assault. And if a person under arrest refuses to comply and be cuffed, well it doesn't really matter their age, sex or race now does it?

I think the OP could revise his statement to say "If you are under arrest and the police tell you to do something, do it."
 
jcoiii-
Thanks for the balance here...seriously.


TBO-
Oh, no you don't. You don't get to take my words out of context on this one. The context of that statement was that I don't have all the facts, while those doing knee-jerk defense of the cop already have all the facts they need.

See a bit of "imbalance" there? Just a hint of partiality?
Why is that?
Rich
 
Rich no intent to take your words out of context. You quoted a post and then put your comment right underneath it. Here is the quoted text you put up:

the woman got what she deserved. the cop can't spend all day negotiating with the woman because she won't comply.

Here is your reply to it:

Ummmm, could he spend 30 seconds on an elderly EMPLOYER? Again, not saying he had choices, pending further info; but you're clearly concluding he had none. (I'll be interested to see just how many times she actually was juiced....if she's substantially lying about it being multiple, she's unworthy of my interest or sympathy; if she's substantially correct, the officer is no longer an officer...he's a thug worthy of nothing more than my contempt and vilification.....I, too, have a Mother.)

Thus I concluded:

the cop can't spend all day negotiating

is exactly what you were replying to when you followed with:

Ummmm, could he spend 30 seconds on an elderly EMPLOYER?

Make sense now?
 
TBO-
Let it go. Intentional "obtusity" does not become you. The phrase just prior to what you quoted, clearly stated:
Noto Bene: I have NOT claimed excessive force as I do not have enough info. But this IS an incident worthy of following.
Click to expand...

I understand your knee-jerk impulse to defend a brother. No, I take that back. I have no knee-jerk need to defend web site owners, magazine publishers, former health care entrepeneurs or alumni of any of the schools I attended.

Is this particular uniformed civilian known personally to you?
Rich
 
Back on topic, okay.

TBO-
Let it go. Intentional "obtusity" does not become you. The phrase just prior to what you quoted, clearly stated:

I understand your knee-jerk impulse to defend a brother. No, I take that back. I have no knee-jerk need to defend web site owners, magazine publishers, former health care entrepeneurs or alumni of any of the schools I attended.

Is this particular uniformed civilian known personally to you?
Rich
Click to expand...
Okay, so lets see, you have:

-accused me of both "knee jerk" reaction, and "defending" the Officer

-put me down and built yourself up (re: I knee jerk, you don't)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please show supporting evidence that I have defended this Officer.



No, I do not know who any of the people are involved in this incident.
 
Okay, so lets see, you have:

-accused me of both "knee jerk" reaction, and "defending" the Officer
Click to expand...
I have not "accused" you of a thing, TBO. I have simply pointed out the differences in our positions and statements. Is that no longer cricket?

-put me down and built yourself up (re: I knee jerk, you don't)
Click to expand...
If you've been put down, it's not my statements that have done so. You choose your own positions and words and I have no control over them whatsoever.

Thread's going south, TBO. Wanna debate the topic? Do so. Wanna spar with me? Try rich@swatmag.com

OK? OK? OK?
Rich
 
jcoiii-
I find the only ignorance here is the cop-elitist attitude. The reason that young America hates cops isn't young America's fault, it is cops and their attitude. I am sure you think I am wrong, but answer me this:Why, in one of the top-selling video game series of all times do you get points for killing cops? If kids weren't sick of cops, the stuff wouldn't sell. Those kids are growing in to tax-paying voters. A sheriff who wants to keep getting re-elected would not keep a guy that tazers grannies around. That is not ignorance, that is common sense.

As for the attitude that cops are always right; I am thankful that we have the courts to let them know how wrong they can be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top