on Tasers- by the Journal of Emergency Medical Services (JEMS)

The part about the inferiority complex comes from you constantly appealing to emotion by attempting to put words in my mouth ("putting yourself above others", "us lowly civillians", etc).
Pointing that out is NOT meant as a personal attack. If you feel it is so I'd be happy to go to PM instead.
What ever way you'd prefer it.

TBO
 
Well, certainly you don't need my permission to go private, TBO. I don't have that type of authority issue.

Knock yourself out. But the public forum is fine with me....I doubt anybody but you and I are following at this point.

Rich
ps: show me where, in the past 4 pages, I've used the phrases "putting yourself above others" or "us lowly civillians". I can't find them anywhere. Wanna continue to pop-psych me? Then at least quote me accurately.
 
you don't get to quote "what the courts have ruled", when defending enforcement of BS laws, while conveniently **forgetting** what they have ruled when trying to place yourself above us mere "civilians".

What you have, essentially, is only a "duty" to report and observe such actions; and then only if it would not jeopardize your own safety. To pretend that you are somehow, under force of law, required to intervene in every violent situation is disingenuous. The only difference between you and I, in such situations, is your legal duty to report....and that only because you chose to be PAID to do so.

Many of my heros wear a badge. But the badge, itself, confers neither hero status nor any other type of superiority over those who choose other careers.

You've already backpedaled to "potentially dangerous" and "unknown" situations. Seems to be a far cry from the previous statement, "If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action.".

It's kinda called "not doing your job", where I come from. It's hardly some "higher standard" that grants you special birthright privileges under the law.

You have used the threat of these High Crimes in an attempt to demonstrate that the Police Officer must have access to a lowered bar for use of force than the "common people" do.

There
Steel workers have tough, dangerous jobs, too, TBO; so do firemen, doctors, nurses, postmen, flight crews and taxi drivers....each can be sued for negligence and worse. We just don't hear them trying to convince people how "different" and "special" their jobs are.
Can you really not see the pattern here. I've never claimed to be a hero or said I'm more valuable than anyone, nor have special privileges, etc. You're constant referral to these types of things speaks about YOU. That's what I'm talking about, and as I've pointed out, you don't even realize it. Read through my posts. You'll see that you're adding your own view to my posts. There is NOTHING in my posts the least bit like what you are stating. That means it comes from INSIDE you.


So tell me again: Why is it so important that the rules of force in that situation be different for you than the rest of us.
Another perfect example. Nowhere do you see me saying "This is the way things should be".
What you do see me doing is explaining the way things ARE according to law, procedure, policy, and expectation. No right way, no wrong way, just the way things currently are.

All the best

TBO
 
Oh yes, I certainly see now. I never said the things you quoted me as saying. I simply said things that you chose to interpret that way, granting you the right to quote me with your fantasy. Next time, I promise to ask your interpretation before posting commonly understood English. If it offends, I shall dutifully edit. :rolleyes:

I also now understand that you were never arguing a point of view. You were simply pointing out a reality. Clearly I got it wrong. Mea maxima culpa.

Let's start from the beginning, shall we? (I'll stand by my quotes.)
tyme said:
You have a few more arrest powers for minor crimes, and in some cases you have retained arrest or pursuit powers while the rest of us lowly citizens have had them unconstitutionally stripped away. But each day when you go to work, you are a citizen, just as we are. You don't operate at some entirely different level with arrest powers that are totally different from those of citizens.

To which you specifically pronounced:
If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action. [Emphasis YOURS]

I guess I missed something in the past 20+ posts. How is it that you're "different"-"special"-"cursed", again? Or are you no different than the Non-Badged citizens (other than your obligations to a job, which does NOT require you to step into Harm's Way as, for instance, is required of our Military personnel)? A clear answer would be real refreshing.

I am nothing, if not relentless, TBO. :eek:
Rich
 
Authorized use of force.

Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise
provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or
toward the person of another without the other's consent when
the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably
believes them to exist:

(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public
officer under the public officer's direction:

(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(b) in the execution of legal process; or

(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public
officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting
another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and
delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the
other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another
to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or
personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful
possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful
interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to
retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a
charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other
lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful
authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in
the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil,
or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger
who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of
passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the
passenger's personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or
mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when
used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with
reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or
treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing
custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to
compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control,
conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers.
Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have
announced their presence and are performing official duties at a
location where a person is committing a crime or an act that
would be a crime if committed by an adult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justifiable taking of life.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not
authorized by section XXX.XX, except when necessary in resisting
or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes
exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or
preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of
abode.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Authorized use of deadly force by peace officers.

Subdivision 1. Deadly force defined. For the
purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the
actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor
should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing,
death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a
firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions
and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties,
in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which
another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.
"Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to
stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to
a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section
XXX.XX, subdivision 1.

Subd. 2. Use of deadly force. Notwithstanding the
provisions of section XXX.XX or XXX.XX, the use of deadly force
by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when
necessary:

(1) To protect the peace officer or another from apparent
death or great bodily harm;

(2) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape,
of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable
grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape,
of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to
believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the
officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or
great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Directly from state law, verbatim, go it?
 
TBO-
I read it, but what on earth is your point? And why does it keep morphing? Shall I now post the entirety of the Federalist Papers and the Lincoln-Douglas Debates? The full script of Animal House? :D

Seriously, is a codified "Use of Force" directive what makes you so different from the rest of your neighbors? They, too, have a well defined "Use of Force" directive, embodied in law.

The question was: Are the standards different and, if so, why? Your answer was, "If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action." (Emphasis YOURS) .

Now you respond with regulations which were the subject of the question in the first place? Far too circular for my remaining neurons. None of those regs mentions the dread misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance that you waved under our noses a bit ago. What happened to Mis, Mal and Non?

I Am So :confused:
Rich
 
I over looked this thread for awhile as I figured that it would be a dull topic. Couldn't help myself looking when I saw the number of replies however. good conversation guys.

This got me to look up the local news here in WA (ok it is Seattle news so take it with a grain of salt). What I found was this:

"A review by the sheriff's office found that deputies were too quick to fire the tasers, even when the threat level was low, and too many of the people being tased were suffering serious burns and scars."
http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_052505WABtaserEL.2adda6c44.html

I sure wouldn't want this to happen to me....but then I am not out in the middle of the night dealing with drunks, criminals and the like. If you feel I am an immediate threat to your life and/or the public at large then shoot me. If I am resisting then beat me otherwise I imagine words will do. Please don't shock me!!!

Shawn
 
"If an Officer is sent to a call or witnesses a crime/situation, he has to take action."
How many times can I say "Yes". The answer is still yes.

As far as "morphing", take a look at your own posts.


'The only difference between you and I....'


Well, I just posted a boat load of difference (not in how I feel, but in what State Law actually is).
 
Back
Top