more from JPFO on Florida traffic stop and tasering of driver, and another item too.

Tasers as instruments of destruction and oppression by the Man

I agree with TheeBadOne on the Taser - if it is found out that it is actually causing some permanent damage to the cardiovascular system, then that may be be another thing.

At this point, there seems to be little evidence that Tasers cause any permanent damage. The only thing I have heard anecdotally is that there have been some incidents of cardiac arrest. Even if that is true, however, you have to realize that the Taser is being used in leiu of other forms of force. If you have even hand to hand fights with hundreds of thousands of cases, there are going to be some heart attacks, I can guarantee you that, and there are also going to be a lot worse, because that sort of interaction encourages escalation to more dangerous levels, whereas the Taser just stops the fight before it can become dangerous to either party - I see it as both safer and more humane.
 
Technical arrest vs custodial arrest..blah blah blah blah.

If i am in the black and white behind you with my blinky lights on, you are in my custody. If I order you to exit a vehicle, that a LAWFUL order. the details of the arrest are irrelevant. Disobeying a lawful order is against the law. Period. She broke the law x 1000, she posed an unknown threat to the officers, she was placed under your so called custodial arrest without any harm to her whatsoever.

Tell me, had the officer grabbed her in an armbar and extricated the whiny b*tch through the keyhole, would that have made you happier? Or should he have called SWAT and a hostage negotiator? I suppose he should have just let her go, and filed for a warrant? Negative.

I feel he showed a lot of restraint, personally. it would have been much more gratifying to lay hands upon her, and let her resist a little bit.
 
liliysdad
If i am in the black and white behind you with my blinky lights on, you are in my custody. If I order you to exit a vehicle, that a LAWFUL order. the details of the arrest are irrelevant. Disobeying a lawful order is against the law. Period
Click to expand...
"Lawful order"? Well .. except for the color of the car .. that does remind me of my military cop days. Except that soldiers, airmen and sailors knew what they were in for - or should have done - when they signed on the dotted line.

So is this a foretaste of the new military junta? Perhaps this is why the erroneous term "civilian" is increasingly being injected when referring to "everyone else".
 
Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force b : OUTSIDER 1
- civilian adjective
Click to expand...

Yeah, and they define the national gaurd as the "militia" also.

The national gaurds on website says it's been around for over 300 years.

So much for truth in definition.

http://www.arng.army.mil/history/
 
This used to be the definition:
civilian

adj : associated with or performed by civilians as contrasted with the military; "civilian clothing"; "civilian life" [ant: military] n : a nonmilitary citizen [ant: serviceman]

So according to the modern definition, the police are a military unit? TBO, perhaps you need to look at the LEGAL definition. You will find you are still a ... CIVILIAN! (Blacks 6th Ed.)
 
Hey, relax folks. Just pointing out that many folks get all bent out of shape over the use of the work "Civillian". I pointed out that it's used properly (according to the current dictionary). Some folks still get upset and point out: "It use to be different".
Well, that is certainly true. The english language is constantly evolving. Witness these words and their use: Gay, Cock, Ain't,
If the language didn't change, we'd all still be speaking "Old English".

It is an olde saw, he fighteth wele that fleith faste.
 
LAK and Handy

Tell me if you are so obliged, What in your eyes would be an acceptable method of handling this incident? I see a lot of "It was wrong", but no solution. I am not asking you to fix anything just want to see your views on this.........As for me I do have the military mindset because I am a federal LEO and do not see what was wrong here. I Always keep in mind "I will go home tonight safe and intact."
 
All just opinion here:

If I'm a LEO, I would be less likely to tase a woman I feel I can overcome by other means. He would be less persecuted had he ripped the door open, and pulled her out by her arm, put her on her belly and yanked her arms behind her back - than using a taser.

I think I would only use a taser in situations where I feel I'll have a problem overcoming the individual with my own personal physical ability.

I think he could have done so w/out the taser. And all this talk about "potential broken bones" being avoided because they used the taser is just plain crap. You don't need to kick the crap out of someone to get them out of the vehicle......... and in the instance that you do - maybe they deserve it.

She was wrong to resist - he (IMO) was wrong to taser when other means which are less shocking to watch (no punn intended) could have been used. Either way, I would have gotten her out of the vehicle using some sort of force.
 
Yes if you are stopped and the officer directs you to exit the vehicle (whether under arrest or not) it is not optional. The Supreme Court has upheld this many times for officer safety.
Click to expand...
Ah, I get it. "Officer safety" takes precedence over citizens rights. That explains a lot.

Will "Officer Safety" become the new "For the Children" cry where rights are trampled in the name of "protecting" officers? How far do we carry this? Should any perceived threat to an officer's safety, no matter how slight, lead to instant escalation? Gawd, I hope not.

While I'm all for officer safety in general, putting this above our rights only brings us one more step closer to a police state. I'm sorry, but if officers feel they have to take extreme steps to protect their safety, then perhaps they should consider a career change.
 
I think I would only use a taser in situations where I feel I'll have a problem overcoming the individual with my own personal physical ability
Click to expand...
No offense and maybe I shouldn't speak for Leo but, I don't think you understand use of force

When I was a bouncer we were taught to always address unruly customers in teams of 3 if at all possible.
Not for our safety but for the customer's safety.
Anytime there is a one on one physical altercation there is a very real chance that one or the other is going to be hurt and left with litigatable(?) scars, marks or bruises.
Being able to quickly overpower someone, either with reinforcements or mechanical means greatly improves their chances of coming out relatively unscathed.
was wrong to taser when other means which are less shocking to watch
Click to expand...
How shocking do you think her civil lawyer would have made a fat lip or road rashed arm.
How shocking would it have been, on film edited for TV, to see to big bad jack boots wrestling and subduing some poor little model in the middle of the street.

Which use of force is actually the least concern for me. Did he have the right to use any level of physical force should be the most important consideration.

I think the video shows that he did
 
joab said:
When I was a bouncer we were taught to always address unruly customers in teams of 3 if at all possible.
Click to expand...
OK the officer in the video is alone... so I'm not sure what this comment is all about. I was a bouncer at an unruly country/western bar. Idealy, yes you won't be alone when confronting a misbehaving patron, but often times I was alone, similar to this officer. And you have to make do.

With all due respect, I understand use of force just fine Joab. I understand (maybe read: believe, but whatever) that the use of force should be no more than is needed to take care of the situation. I'd rather have a scraped up elbow, or fat lip, than have darts shot into my skin while ##### volts of electricity pulsate through my body paralizing my CNS.

joab said:
How shocking do you think her civil lawyer would have made a fat lip or road rashed arm.
How shocking would it have been, on film edited for TV, to see to big bad jack boots wrestling and subduing some poor little model in the middle of the street.
Click to expand...
I promise you, the civil lawyer is going to have more of a field day with this, than had the officer done as you suggest above, "wrestle" this woman into an arrest.

joab said:
Which use of force is actually the least concern for me. Did he have the right to use any level of physical force should be the most important consideration.

I think the video shows that he did
Click to expand...
I agree, he did. But I do not agree with the type of force he chose to use. Do I think he's an evil racist pig. Hell no. But I do think he needs to be advised as to when certain levels of force, while easier on him, are not necessarily warranted given such circumstances.
 
Two things

1. Yes in an arrest situation officer safety does take priority over personal rights. That's obvious. It's why handcuffs were invented. If you're under arrest you lose your right to free movement (or your right to sit in your car and talk on your phone, among others).

2. I fail to see how anyone with any familiarity with tasers would rather be subjected to physical force (road rash, fat lip, etc.). I've been in more fights than I care to recall and been subjected to all convential less than lethal means and I would, by far, prefer to be hit with the taser. It's 5 seconds and when it's done it's done. Don't let her acting job mislead you. Electricity has no residual effects inside the body. Once the current stopped she wasn't feeling anything, unlike road rash, fat lips, and pepper spray.
 
good.gif
 
She was begging for an incident from the word "go." He asked her multiple times, very clearly, to step out of the vehicle.
What's he to do? Wait for her to call her friends and order a pizza? Like the cop said, it was bound to go downhill from the start.

I've been pulled over a number of times and, go figure, have never been tased. She was totally beligerant and just plain awful. They have a job to do and unless they're doing an illegal search and seizure or something, it's best to let them do it.

I tell ya, cops are damned if they do, damned if they don't. This guy did nothing wrong and was professional and tolerant of her hysterics and rudeness during the entire episode.
 
SCCop said:
2. I fail to see how anyone with any familiarity with tasers would rather be subjected to physical force (road rash, fat lip, etc.).
Click to expand...

No, I've never been hit by a taser. But it doesn't look fun. I'll have to take your word for it. I've been punched in the face. Been slammed on pavement (road rash). Among many other things (hospitals have made their share from me). Those I can tolerate. But - I wouldn't be in her situation to begin with. I'd have gotten out of the vehicle, and followed direction. If I felt something was being done to me unlawfully (i.e. "my rights are being trampled!!!") I would have dealt with that through the proper channels.

I think this woman was asking for force to be used. I think I've made this clear. This LEO chose a taser. All I meant, was personally, I wouldn't have resorted to the taser.

But hey, I'm not an LEO either so who knows. After years on the job I might become jaded and tase everyone.
 
Wow! Look how far we've come in 150 years. Back in the 19th century, you were legally entitled to violently resist arrest if the officer didn't have a warrant. Today, you have to roll over and play dead at the whim of the cop even though he may not have a warrant, or even probable cause, all in the name of officer safety.

For all of the time I see cops around here wasting every day, I'd think they could wait a minute or two until someone finishes their call, which was probably to a family member to inform them of their situation--somehow I doubt she was on the phone to make an appointment for a manicure.

Officers need to realize that we pay them to protect and serve us, not to harrass and annoy us.
 
"Protect and Serve"

Hmm...... interesting phrase.

Make of it what you will......


Protect:To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard. See Synonyms at defend.
To help (domestic industry) with tariffs or quotas on imported goods.
To assure payment of (drafts or notes, for example) by setting aside funds.


Serve:
To work for.
To be a servant to.

To prepare and offer (food, for example): serve tea.
To place food before (someone); wait on: served the guests a wonderful dinner.

To provide goods and services for (customers): a hotel that has served tourists at the same location for 30 years.
To supply (goods or services) to customers. See Usage Note at service.
To assist the celebrant during (Mass).

To meet the requirements of; suffice for: This will serve the purpose.
To be of assistance to or promote the interests of; aid: "Both major parties today seek to serve the national interest" (John F. Kennedy).

To work through or complete (a period of service): served four terms in Congress.
To be in prison for (a period or term): served 10 years for armed robbery.
To fight or undergo military service for: served the country for five years in the navy.
To give homage and obedience to: served God.
To act toward (another) in a specified way: She has served me ill.
To copulate with; service. Used of male animals.
Law
To deliver or present (a writ or summons).
To present such a writ to.
Sports To put (a ball or shuttlecock) in play, as in tennis, badminton, or jai alai.
To bind or whip (a rope) with fine cord or wire.
VERB:
intr.

To be employed as a servant.
To do a term of duty: serve in the U.S. Air Force; serve on a jury.
To act in a particular capacity: serve as a clerk.
To be of service or use; function: Let this incident serve as a reminder to future generations.
To meet requirements or needs; satisfy: a device that will serve well.
To wait on tables: serve at luncheon.
Sports To put a ball or shuttlecock into play, as in court games.
To assist the celebrant during Mass.



So cops are supposed to give us Tea and Pay our bills.......
 
Back in the 19th century, you were legally entitled to violently resist arrest if the officer didn't have a warrant.
Click to expand...

SO, you are telling me that in the 1800's, if you shot someone in front of the officer, he couldn't arrest you until he went and seen a judge and got a warrant, that you could shoot him if he tried to arrest you :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top