http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32414706#32414706
I'm not gonna comment on this yet. Instead, I'll let some non-LE opinions get posted before I analyze it. I'm interested in the public perception of her actions and the officer's reaction that led up to this.
I don't' know what she was saying to him, but she didn't look like any kind of a threat just standing there. :huh:
I think she's lying about not speeding, though. Just look at her.
And if the officer said "you're under arrest", and she got back in the car, anyway, then maybe she deserved it.
K, well she shouldn't have gotten out as was said.
You can see from her stance that she was was being a bit of a bitch about it too. "I wanna see the tape", lol, dumb ass. Just nod and smile and take your day in court.
Thing is that she never appeared to pose a physical thread to the officer. He could have easily subdued her minus the taser.
He kinda pulled her down right out into the middle of the road there though too, that doesn't seem safe to me.
She got out of the car without being prompted to do so by the officer, she apparently refused to return to the vehicle, and when he placed her under arrest she tried to get back into her car as if nothing happened (just watching the tape, ignoring the idiotic reporting, which frankly is biased beyond belief in favor of the "victim".). Basically she escalated the situation. I don't know what Syracuse police policy is on these matters, but my natural inclination is to assume that this lady is hiding something or not telling the full story. Typically these police tapes have audio from the officer, no?
All I can say is:
Tamryn Hall = HOT :praise:
(http://theblackquarterback.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/canidate.jpg)
Did you guys also get that silly cheese commercial in the beginning? The voice of that woman at the beginning...didn't sound very convincing.
"Ok, so I am like getting paid like to say this so I will just like say it, ok!?" :facepalm: :wtf:
Since the news butchered up the video, here's the in-car camera video from beginning to end. The driver has a little vocal commentary, which I found kinda interesting (again, I'll wait to put in my .02).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHyw9LHTSF8
Quote from: bing_oh on August 14, 2009, 08:39:20 AM
Since the news butchered up the video, here's the in-car camera video from beginning to end. The driver has a little vocal commentary, which I found kinda interesting (again, I'll wait to put in my .02).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHyw9LHTSF8
Bitch don't listen.
Yeah, this is another one of those things that shouldn't even make national news.
The local paper should have a headline that reads "Cunt doesn't listen, resists arrest, Score: Taser 1, Cunt 0"
I noticed that youtube has a huge number of "police brutality" videos. Kind of annoying that any time a cop has to take down a perp it's the cop using excessive force.
Imo, I think the cop showed excessive force. He wasn't threatened, there was no serious crime committed and he could have taken care of the situation without the taser.
Fire his ass, I say :rage:
It is unfortunate that we do not have audio of the situation but it appears that the woman disobeyed commands from the officer at least four times before he used the taser on her. She obviously does not understand that disobeying an officers command is an obstruction and is grounds for her being arrested. Her commentary shows that she believes that as long as she wasn't doing anything wrong (in her eyes) to begin with then anything that she did after that was perfectly acceptable. She should have just taken the ticket and made the officer prove the charges in court.
The way it sounds from the other pieces on tasering, tasers may eventually become off limits for cops, which is a shame, since they are useful tools of law enforcement. Of course, if people abuse them, a few bad apples will ruin it for the whole bunch. From the video, it looks like he tasered her for no reason at all. Just because he could. Now, my own bias leads me to believe that he did indeed fabricate the cell phone and speeding charges, but it's possible that he didn't.
I'm hardly an expert on traffic stops, but I was always told there are a few cardinal rules to follow when you get stopped:
1) Always be polite
2) Turn your vehicle off and put it in park (or apply the parking brake)
3) Keep your hands visible and don't make sudden or threatening movements or suddenly reach for storage bins, glove box, under seats, etc. If you're going to reach for your glove box or other nook to get your paperwork, tell the officer you're going to that spot to get the paperwork prior to reaching for it.
4) Do not under any circumstances get out of your vehicle unless explicitly requested to do so by the officer. Getting out of your car when not told to do so is interpreted as a threat and will usually be followed by shouting and a weapon being drawn and pointed at you.
She clearly broke rule number 4. Based on the video, it appears that as soon as she opens her door to get out of the vehicle, the officer is telling her to stop and get back into the vehicle (based on his holding his hand up to signify "halt right there") and instead of complying, she continues to get out of the vehicle and makes no effort to turn around and get back in up until he pulls his taser and says she's under arrest.
Could the officer been a little cooler about it? Probably. Although I don't feel he was completely out of line either. She made a threatening action by stepping out of her vehicle while the officer had his back to her and failed to comply with the officer's instructions (which according to her own testimony were perfectly reasonable to me).
The taser was excessive. Whether or not the officer made anything up, she didn't do the right thing. But she never posed any physical threat. He was pretty rough with her, too.
Hmm.. seems a bit difficult.
What I can say is that it appears that she wasn't listening to instructions, on several occasions. I'd love to hear some audio. The one thing I've not done and never will do is exit the vehicle unless I'm told to. Police here in Winnipeg put up with an unbelievable amount of shit on traffic stops ( I may be a bit biased, I have two cop friends ), that half the time, they do not know wtf they are getting into on a simple stop. Besides, I'm supposed to argue the case with the judge aren't I? She looked like she wanted to plead her case right then and there. Sometimes it may work, but you should probably determine the mood of the situation before you attempt such a thing.
I'm not sure if he should have tased her, but you knew something would happen if she wasn't following instructions.
1. She gets out
2. He says she is under arrest
3. She then tries to get back in to
a. Drive away
b. Get a weapon
What is he supposed to at that point?
Quote from: NACar on August 14, 2009, 04:28:19 PM
1. She gets out
2. He says she is under arrest
3. She then tries to get back in to
a. Drive away
b. Get a weapon
What is he supposed to at that point?
Say, "Awe shucks, you're right ma'am, pardon me while I sheepishly comply with
your demands."
Quote from: Northlands on August 14, 2009, 03:40:43 PM
Hmm.. seems a bit difficult.
What I can say is that it appears that she wasn't listening to instructions, on several occasions. I'd love to hear some audio. The one thing I've not done and never will do is exit the vehicle unless I'm told to. Police here in Winnipeg put up with an unbelievable amount of shit on traffic stops ( I may be a bit biased, I have two cop friends ), that half the time, they do not know wtf they are getting into on a simple stop. Besides, I'm supposed to argue the case with the judge aren't I? She looked like she wanted to plead her case right then and there. Sometimes it may work, but you should probably determine the mood of the situation before you attempt such a thing.
I'm not sure if he should have tased her, but you knew something would happen if she wasn't following instructions.
She also may not have known that she could go to court over a traffic ticket. :huh:
I'm going to try to get tasered the next time I get pulled over.
Psilos, do you think you'd get tasered if you fought with the cop while he tried to take your bag of weed away from you? :lol:
Quote from: NACar on August 14, 2009, 04:28:19 PM
1. She gets out
2. He says she is under arrest
3. She then tries to get back in to
a. Drive away
b. Get a weapon
What is he supposed to at that point?
Well, he pulled her out of the car, then tasered her. So, she didn't have a weapon, wasn't driving away (being out of the car), and wasn't doing anything else threatening...
The third option, c., is get back in to keep the situation from getting more out of hand because she is confused. Of course, the cop can't know her intentions.
Quote from: dazzleman on August 14, 2009, 05:55:07 PM
I'm going to try to get tasered the next time I get pulled over. :devil:
Next time? Ha, yeah right. You're never getting pulled over again...
:lol:
Quote from: Psilos on August 14, 2009, 05:56:31 PM
Next time? Ha, yeah right. You're never getting pulled over again...
:lol:
You're probably right, man. :lol: I haven't been pulled over in 10 years, and it's not for lack of trying.... :devil: Advancing age makes you less visible to the police.
I don't think he legally did anything wrong by tasing her, but I think some officers are becoming a bit fast with the trigger finger on these things. Like Raza said, places are going to start outlawing these unless they're used more sparingly. The woman was obviously in the wrong, and she should have known she could have this coming, though.
My 75% bet is that there are department policies for this exact scenario given the catastrophic consequences of a police chase. She resisted arrest and then tried to get back into the vehicle; the logical conclusion is that she going to try to flee. This CANNOT be allowed to happen. In this context, which is the path of least consequences for both LEO and perpetrator - a wrestling match near the road way, or a bit of taser action?
In absolute terms it's kinda awkward seeing a woman go down with a bit of taser action after nothing more than watching the fat little body try to get into and out of the minivan a few times, but in relative terms it'd likely been worse had the LEO had to wrestle with her in the road, in the car, or worst of all, engaged in a pursuit had she tried to drive off. Ultimately, the debate isn't whether or not to taser, the the debate is whether or not to get physical.
LEOs - 1, fat stupid white trash - 0.
Yes, because her being fat is a pretty big factor, here.
Quote from: Psilos on August 15, 2009, 03:13:25 AM
Yes, because her being fat is a pretty big factor, here.
:lol:
Ok, I think I've held back on my analysis long enough. So, here goes...
The first thing I noticed wasn't even related to the situation but the reporting. It was, to be perfectly blunt, disgustingly biased. The "exclusive interview" with the driver and her lawyer, preceeded by a spokesman from Amnesty International (who have long wanted a moritorum on tasers) and a clip of unrelated tasings (all either ones that were very dramatic or well-covered by the media in the past), was a great example of biased reporting. Obviously, the department isn't going to make a statement, given that there's a pending lawsuit, but there was absolutely no attempt at fair-handed reporting in this. She's even being promped during the interview!
Something else I found amusing was the emphesis that she was "tased" twice. In reality, she wasn't tased at all. I'm not saying that the taser wasn't deployed, but that it didn't work properly. What you're actually watching in the video is a taser malfunction. With only one probe making contact, she's getting a minimal amount of juice...the connection that causes incapacitation was not being made. At no point does she actually react to the tasing. If you guys remember my taser video, you'll recall that the taser locked me (a 6'01, 215 lb guy) up so I couldn't move.
Alright, I'm gonna take some swipes at the actual meat of the stop.
First and foremost, this lady did pretty much everything wrong that she could have on the stop. Her first and biggest mistake was getting out of the vehicle unprompted. It's common sense that you do not exit your vehicle on a traffic stop unless the officer tells you to...PERIOD! When you exit the vehicle, then the officer has to consider you a threat. She obviously decided that she had the right to play roadside lawyer and argue with the officer...her statements make it clear that she thought that she had the right to see the video of her speeding and talking on her cell phone. Quite simply, she didn't have that right. The time to argue a ticket is in court, not on the side of the road. From the officer's actions, I think it can be safely assumed that she was ordered back into her vehicle. Again, she screwed up when she didn't comply. Now, the officer tells her that she's under arrest (you'll notice on her narrative from the youtube video that she remembers when he told her when she was under arrest but, on the Today Show, she's conveniently forgotten), and she tries to get back into her vehicle. Again, she's not complying. Her actions also would lead a prudent officer to assume that she's re-entering the vehicle for one of two things...either to retireve a weapon or to drive away. Either one is simply not an action the officer can permit. The officer tries to remove her from the vehicle to place her under arrest and, at this point, you can see that she's actively resisting being removed from the vehicle. Once she's out, the officer transitions to the taser, a perfectly acceptable alternative given that she's already failed to comply with verbal commands and resisted being removed from the vehicle. She tries to get into the vehicle again, at which point the taser is fired and malfunctions. The officer has to go hands-on to complete the arrest.
Now, what were the alternatives?
Well, the first ones would have been her alternatives. Namely, she could have remained in her vehicle or complied with the officer's instructions. She decided not to do this, forcing action from the officer.
The officer obviously tried verbal commands...commands which, by her own commentary, she ignored. Once the officer told her she was under arrest and she didn't comply, then his options were either physical restraint or taser (pepper spray wasn't a viable option, given the kids in the car). Now, he could have reasonably taken her to the ground using a variety of hands-on restraint moves, but he chose the taser. Really, the taser was probably a better option. The chance of physical harm using the taser is dramatically less that of using hands-on restraint techniques. Hands-on tends to leave bruises, scrapes, and cuts, not to mention the occastional broken bone or more serious injury on actively-resisting suspects.
As for her not being a threat to him, that's really a non-issue. An officer performing an arrest uses the necessary force to overcome resistance, whether that be physical presence or verbal commands all the way up to deadly force. The resistance of the arrestee dictates the force used. While she wasn't assaultive toward the officer, she was clearly resisting arrest. At the very least, she was passively resisting to prevent the arrest. During her removal from the vehicle, her resistance was active (she was struggling against the officer to prevent him from removing her from the vehicle). This level of resistance can be countered by hands-on physcial control techniques to low-level force options like OC spray or taser. None of these options would have been/were out of line. It doesn't look pleasant...to use Psilos' phrase, it looked like the officer was "pretty rough" with her...but overcoming resistance rarely looks nice. Most times, it looks mean and nasty and brutal.
I have no sympathy for her, and I don't trust news media reports of incidents like this, which invariably leave out key facts that don't support the case they're trying to make.
Quote from: Psilos on August 15, 2009, 03:13:25 AM
Yes, because her being fat is a pretty big factor, here.
It's a scientific fact that fat and stupidity are directly correlated. I read something about it in a magazine at Borders.
Quote from: R-inge on August 15, 2009, 07:16:14 AM
It's a scientific fact that fat and stupidity are directly correlated. I read something about it in a magazine at Borders.
:lol:
Kidding aside, people do associate fat with stupidity, whether it's true or not. Same thing with smoking.
tasering should be a last resort for cops. Like someone said above, it seems like the cops just go "oh yeah? Well I'm gonna taser you" to just about everything...
Quote from: SVT_Power on August 15, 2009, 10:17:36 AM
tasering should be a last resort for cops. Like someone said above, it seems like the cops just go "oh yeah? Well I'm gonna taser you" to just about everything...
If that were true, stories like this would be far too common to make the national news.
Quote from: Psilos on August 14, 2009, 05:54:29 PM
She also may not have known that she could go to court over a traffic ticket. :huh:
I don't know how it works in the U.S. ( or might be different by state too.. ) , but officers here inform you that you can take your ticket to a magistrate in traffic court here if you want to disagree with the charge laid.
Quote from: Psilos on August 14, 2009, 05:54:29 PM
She also may not have known that she could go to court over a traffic ticket. :huh:
If she didn't know that, then she's really dumb.
Quote from: SVT_Power on August 15, 2009, 10:17:36 AMtasering should be a last resort for cops. Like someone said above, it seems like the cops just go "oh yeah? Well I'm gonna taser you" to just about everything...
Why should a tool that usually leads to an arrest of resisting suspects with no injury or long-term side effects be a last resort? Wouldn't you prefer that officers use such a device instead of risking injury by wresting around with them or beating someone into compliance?
Quote from: Northlands on August 15, 2009, 10:38:55 AMI don't know how it works in the U.S. ( or might be different by state too.. ) , but officers here inform you that you can take your ticket to a magistrate in traffic court here if you want to disagree with the charge laid.
She never let it get to the point where she was issued a citation and it was explained to her that she could take it to court. She was out of her car before the officer even got back to his cruiser after getting her license and it escalated from there. Besides, you'd be hard-pressed to tell me that an adult driver out there doesn't know that you can plead not guilty to a traffic ticket. Hell, I'm not even sure that she knew she was getting a ticket at that point...she never says anything about knowing she's getting a ticket and most LEO's don't tell people before the ticket is written.
Quote from: bing_oh on August 15, 2009, 10:48:39 AM
She never let it get to the point where she was issued a citation and it was explained to her that she could take it to court. She was out of her car before the officer even got back to his cruiser after getting her license and it escalated from there. Besides, you'd be hard-pressed to tell me that an adult driver out there doesn't know that you can plead not guilty to a traffic ticket. Hell, I'm not even sure that she knew she was getting a ticket at that point...she never says anything about knowing she's getting a ticket and most LEO's don't tell people before the ticket is written.
Yeah that much I figured. My response was a tiny bit smart alec-ish. :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on August 15, 2009, 10:45:13 AM
Why should a tool that usually leads to an arrest of resisting suspects with no injury or long-term side effects be a last resort? Wouldn't you prefer that officers use such a device instead of risking injury by wresting around with them or beating someone into compliance?
I think that a Rodney King - style beating is in order any time you get out of line with the police. Way more civil than shocking someone. :lol:
The initial minute or so of the video says it all. The tone of voice, the arched eyebrows, and other non-verbal cues by the newspeople are dead giveaways of their bias, and once I see that, I don't generally trust anything further that they say. Then the woman said she got out of the car because she wanted to see the tape. Right there you know she's a troublemaker. The place to review the evidence, if you're going to dispute it, is in court, not at the side of the road.
Funny how she remembered what happened clearly on the YT video. Personally, I think the officer's actions were justified but I think a savvy officer could have handled her a bit differently. Once he told her she was under arrest she had no right to resist by jumping back in the car. Whether she thought it was justified or not is inconsequential. I don't think she has a case.
I got the impression that she got back in the car because she was confused (i.e. she didn't realize that when he said she was under arrest, she was actually under arrest-- maybe she thought he said "or I will put you under arrest"). Same with resisting getting back out of the car (i.e. why is this person trying to pull me out of my car?-- not thinking, oh, this police officer is telling me to do something). I get the impression that she doesn't have to deal with police very often, and doesn't think about it. Those of us in this thread obviously do think about police interactions, so we naturally think differently than her.
Of course, we can't know that stuff for sure, and the officer couldn't have known it, either.
Quote from: Psilos on August 15, 2009, 05:42:33 PM
I got the impression that she got back in the car because she was confused (i.e. she didn't realize that when he said she was under arrest, she was actually under arrest-- maybe she thought he said "or I will put you under arrest"). Same with resisting getting back out of the car (i.e. why is this person trying to pull me out of my car?-- not thinking, oh, this police officer is telling me to do something). I get the impression that she doesn't have to deal with police very often, and doesn't think about it. Those of us in this thread obviously do think about police interactions, so we naturally think differently than her.
Of course, we can't know that stuff for sure, and the officer couldn't have known it, either.
Without audio we really can't draw any conclusions. I'd be interested in seeing what the result of the investigation decides.
Quote from: Psilos on August 15, 2009, 05:42:33 PM
I got the impression that she got back in the car because she was confused (i.e. she didn't realize that when he said she was under arrest, she was actually under arrest-- maybe she thought he said "or I will put you under arrest"). Same with resisting getting back out of the car (i.e. why is this person trying to pull me out of my car?-- not thinking, oh, this police officer is telling me to do something). I get the impression that she doesn't have to deal with police very often, and doesn't think about it. Those of us in this thread obviously do think about police interactions, so we naturally think differently than her.
Of course, we can't know that stuff for sure, and the officer couldn't have known it, either.
In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter if she was confused or not. The officer told her she was under arrest, that's good enough.
Quote from: Catman on August 15, 2009, 06:38:34 PM
In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter if she was confused or not. The officer told her she was under arrest, that's good enough.
Yeah, more or less. It's an unfortunate incident, but I think both parties screwed up to some degree.
Quote from: Psilos on August 15, 2009, 03:13:25 AM
Yes, because her being fat is a pretty big factor, here.
She shrugged off that first taser shot like it was nothing. Blubber to the rescue!
Anyway regardless of what actually happened is infinitely debatable as there is no audio. Yet I can totally see why this made the national news and why that officer is probably gonna lose the case. This is video of a woman getting tasered, and then yanked from her car and then tasered again for good measure. She didn't look to be fighting back or a real danger, and had her kids in her minivan.
Anyway here's my guess on the whole matter. Police officers aren't law enforcing robots that only follow the rules to the letter. They are people with regular human emotions of anger and frustration. If you act very polite, they will be polite back. If you act like a dickwad, they will respond in kind. This lady was probably a major asshole to the police officer, and I'm guessing he got pretty pissed and made a decision he probably now regrets. But I'm glad he is being made an example of, because law enforcement have to be held to a higher standard of resisting their own emotions, as they carry and are allowed to use weapons that can wound or kill.
A few things.
1. Getting out of the car is a BIG :nono: When you're pulled over, let the officer come to you, it's his or her job. Getting out of the car can only put stress on a situation, and although 99% of stops are routine traffic violations, I think all cops have the right to feel a little on edge.
2. Big money say's looking for a fat cash payout (I only watched the first few minutes or so, because my internet is so slow)
3. Audio would help greatly.
4. Although I would have handled the situation differently, getting back into the car when the officer appeared to have not wanted that is another huge mistake. It seems the woman is more at fault than the officer, by a long shot.
Quote from: Submariner on August 15, 2009, 07:51:01 PM
4. Although I would have handled the situation differently, getting back into the car when the officer appeared to have not wanted that is another huge mistake. It seems the woman is more at fault than the officer, by a long shot.
It didn't look like it was super obvious that the officer changed his demand from "get back in the car" to "stay out," even though he did tell her she was under arrest. Who knows, though...
Quote from: Psilos on August 15, 2009, 05:42:33 PMI got the impression that she got back in the car because she was confused (i.e. she didn't realize that when he said she was under arrest, she was actually under arrest-- maybe she thought he said "or I will put you under arrest"). Same with resisting getting back out of the car (i.e. why is this person trying to pull me out of my car?-- not thinking, oh, this police officer is telling me to do something). I get the impression that she doesn't have to deal with police very often, and doesn't think about it. Those of us in this thread obviously do think about police interactions, so we naturally think differently than her.
Of course, we can't know that stuff for sure, and the officer couldn't have known it, either.
I don't agree. Watch the Youtude video and listen to her commentary. She makes it clear in the commentary when the officer told her she was under arrest (unlike on the Today show, when she had a convenient case of alzheimers...probably brought on by her lawyer). Her body language makes it clear that she has no intention of following his direction to get back into the car when she's directed to do so, and only does so to attempt to placate the officer into not arresting her. She simply didn't want to be arrested. And, while there's no audio, I'll bet ya that the officer was yelling at her as he was trying to remove her from the vehicle. Again, I don't think there was any confustion on her part, she didn't want to be arrested and resisted.
Quote from: 565 on August 15, 2009, 07:31:37 PMShe shrugged off that first taser shot like it was nothing. Blubber to the rescue!
Anyway regardless of what actually happened is infinitely debatable as there is no audio. Yet I can totally see why this made the national news and why that officer is probably gonna lose the case. This is video of a woman getting tasered, and then yanked from her car and then tasered again for good measure. She didn't look to be fighting back or a real danger, and had her kids in her minivan.
Anyway here's my guess on the whole matter. Police officers aren't law enforcing robots that only follow the rules to the letter. They are people with regular human emotions of anger and frustration. If you act very polite, they will be polite back. If you act like a dickwad, they will respond in kind. This lady was probably a major asshole to the police officer, and I'm guessing he got pretty pissed and made a decision he probably now regrets. But I'm glad he is being made an example of, because law enforcement have to be held to a higher standard of resisting their own emotions, as they carry and are allowed to use weapons that can wound or kill.
My guess is that, if the officer has a department with a spine (ie, they don't pay her off to shut her up), that he'll come out on top. Like I pointed out in my earlier post, she never really got tasered...let alone tasered twice. Also, the taser is not limited in its use for combatative subjects. It's placed in the use of force for most departments where it can be used on people who are passively or actively resisting, even if they're not a direct physical threat to the officer.
I'm also guessing that this was not a totally emotion-driven encounter for the officer. Her defiance was clear and she was not following his directions during the stop. He was reacting to her actions. The only thing he probably regrets is that this has gotten into the media.
I see nothing wrong. She needs to learn to shut up and listen when an LEO is talking to her.
He probably was a bit trigger happy w/ the taser, but she's an idiot and I have no sympathy for her. Any idiot knows you don't get out of your car during a traffic stop, just as any idiot knows you don't get back into your car when instructed not to. Most importantly - any idiot knows better than to do anything that can be misconstrued as going for a weapon, which is exactly what getting back into the car when told not to will logically be construed as. She certainly doesn't deserve any money for this.
As a matter of character I'm a loudmouthed, snot-nosed, back-talking asshole myself, yet even I have figured out that if I'm polite to the police during a traffic stop (and follow their instructions), 9 times out of 10 they will be polite back. It really doesn't take that much self control when they have a gun, a taser, a can of pepper spray, and the legal authority to utterly ruin your day if not your year.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 17, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He probably was a bit trigger happy w/ the taser, but she's an idiot and I have no sympathy for her. Any idiot knows you don't get out of your car during a traffic stop, just as any idiot knows you don't get back into your car when instructed not to. Most importantly - any idiot knows better than to do anything that can be misconstrued as going for a weapon, which is exactly what getting back into the car when told not to will logically be construed as. She certainly doesn't deserve any money for this.
As a matter of character I'm a loudmouthed, snot-nosed, back-talking asshole myself, yet even I have figured out that if I'm polite to the police during a traffic stop (and follow their instructions), 9 times out of 10 they will be polite back. It really doesn't take that much self control when they have a gun, a taser, a can of pepper spray, and the legal authority to utterly ruin your day if not your year.
:lol:
SOmething tells me this woman is divorced or her husband lets her do the talking.
Quote from: bing_oh on August 15, 2009, 10:45:13 AM
Why should a tool that usually leads to an arrest of resisting suspects with no injury or long-term side effects be a last resort? Wouldn't you prefer that officers use such a device instead of risking injury by wresting around with them or beating someone into compliance?
Well, it should at least be a second to last resort. Last being, you know, shooting with a real gun. :lol:
Anyway, I fully support tasers. I hope the perception of abuse doesn't lead to their banning.
Quote from: Raza on August 17, 2009, 07:53:48 PMWell, it should at least be a second to last resort. Last being, you know, shooting with a real gun. :lol:
Anyway, I fully support tasers. I hope the perception of abuse doesn't lead to their banning.
Most non-LEO's probably don't know it, but OC (pepper) spray went through a long period of debate after it entered into widespread use. In fact, it's very similar to the debates about the Taser now (accusations of deaths related to its use, abuse, etc). I strongly suspect that the Taser is here to stay and the debate will die down, as it did with OC...it's simply too useful of a tool and I don't believe the reports of its direct connection to in-custody deaths.
Quote from: bing_oh on August 17, 2009, 08:25:04 PM
Most non-LEO's probably don't know it, but OC (pepper) spray went through a long period of debate after it entered into widespread use. In fact, it's very similar to the debates about the Taser now (accusations of deaths related to its use, abuse, etc). I strongly suspect that the Taser is here to stay and the debate will die down, as it did with OC...it's simply too useful of a tool and I don't believe the reports of its direct connection to in-custody deaths.
I never heard of deaths related to pepper spray, but I remember the controversy when they linked pepper spray use to blindness.
I, for one, like the idea of cops having a non-lethal way of subduing a suspect. Tasering the wrong guys is a lot better than shooting the wrong guy to death.
Quote from: Raza on August 18, 2009, 06:52:10 AMI never heard of deaths related to pepper spray, but I remember the controversy when they linked pepper spray use to blindness.
I, for one, like the idea of cops having a non-lethal way of subduing a suspect. Tasering the wrong guys is a lot better than shooting the wrong guy to death.
Pepper spray was accused of numerous in-custody deaths. The claim was that it caused respiratory arrest. Medical studies showed that it was bogus (these deaths were later blamed on positional asphyxia, which itself was found to be bogus), but the rumors, accusations, and lawsuits continued for some time. There are some people who believe that the current crop of "taser-related deaths" is from the same medical condition that's been blamed on OC-related respiratory arrest and positional asphyxia...currently being called excited delirium.