Newsstand - Warning to visitors to USA: Police increasingly using "tasers" for little cause

(Just be forwarned along the lines of what happened to KarenH-not that I haven't dissuaded all of you from spending your time and $$$ in the USA before)

There is a new rule at Saginaw City Council meetings. Men are required to take their hats off. Evidently, they are pretty serious about this new rule.

The man was wearing a Los Angeles Dodgers hat. Officer Doug Stacer of the Saginaw Police Department asked him to remove the hat. The man raised his voice and did not remove the hat.

As the officer tried to grab the hat and then tried to grab the man, the man with the hat tried to kick Saginaw Police Chief Gerald Cliff, who was coming to help out.

At that point, Stacer TASERed the man, which sends 50,000 volts into a person's body.

http://abclocal.go.com/wjrt/story?section=local&id=4738161

-----

The teen isn't at student at the school, but showed up yesterday saying he wanted to register for classes.

Because he has prior weapons offenses, the school liaison officer was asked to search him. Police say he was uncooperative, so he was handcuffed.

Police spokesman Howard Payne says Jacquelyn Lightfoot arrived at the school and began swearing, screaming and demanding that her son be released.

Payne says when Lightfoot and her two daughters surrounded the officer and refused to back away, he used his Taser gun on the woman.

http://www.wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S=5655357

----

Man Tasered while standing, talking

David J. Maske, 22, of Sheboygan, said he was just trying to be helpful when he was Tasered in August after not responding to an officer's commands to step out of the road.

Maske said he approached the officer to explain the domestic disturbance the officer was there to investigate — which didn't directly involve Maske — and didn't obey the commands because he thought they were directed at his brother, who the police report said was trying to pull Maske out of the road. The report says Maske told the officer he wasn't moving.

"I didn't even take a step towards (the officer). … I wasn't even getting angry or anything, I was just talking normal," said Maske, who estimated he was eight feet from the officer when the Taser was drawn. "I put my arms straight out to the side of me and was like, 'What are you going to do, shoot an unarmed man?' And my brother tried dragging me back and (the officer) shot me," Maske said.

http://www.sheboygan-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061022/SHE0101/610220499/1973

If I were a cop, I would have tasered them also. if you can't follow simple instructions and you threaten or strike an officer, you deserve the consequences/

Cop instigated the grabbing in the Saginaw story.

Mother yelled at cop in the second but did not touch in the Madison story (what do they say about getting between a mother bear and her cub?)

No contact with or movement towards cop in the third story.

So the consequences of disobeying an orderin America is potential death??

Cop instigated the grabbing in the Saginaw story.

Mother yelled at cop in the second but did not touch in the Madison story (what do they say about getting between a mother bear and her cub?)
No contact with or movement towards cop in the third story.

So the consequences of disobeying an orderin America is potential death??

My instincts say shoot the mother,especially if the cub has prior weapons convictions

LEOs in Florida have also taken to tasering hurricane victims who want to go home to protect their property and protect it from looting:

http://www.local10.com/news/3659012/detail.html

The cops sure weren't going to defend the property from looting or put up tarps to prevent additional water damage; instead they focused their time on tasering a frustrated dad in front of his family to boost their ego and prove that they are in power.

I agree with the premise of the OP. IMO more and more tasering incidents are being reported that are clearly not about safety for the officer or the public but are clearly about the LEO proving that he is "in charge" and the most powerful person in the situation. This kind of behavior is inevitable out of some individuals when their training focuses on making sure they dominate/control every situation.

And just like the tendancy to completely empty your gun in a shooting situation (ever notice how people shot by police are often shot 10, 20, or even 30+ times), there seems to be a tendancy of police on adrenaline rushes to keep firing tasers against individuals that are clearly already incapacitated. (The repeated gunshots make sense in the context of ensuring you stop a true threat, but the repeated taserings do not as the aim is incapacitation, not death, and most of the victims are clearly already incapacitated at the time of the additional taserings.)

In this case (http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/12/06/taser.html) (second article (http://www.nbc4i.com/news/5486903/detail.html) ) police tasered a 68-year-old woman who was waiting in a police station to give a statement, got tired of waiting, and got up to leave. Cops didn't like that, tasered her, ordered her to "get up" as she was writhing on the ground in agony, and continued to taser her for refusing to follow the order to get up. All in all she was tasered 5 times and had to be taken to a hospital.

Tasers do kill people. In this case (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_hit_9_times_41_dies_4_hours_after_arrest.ht m) police tasered a guy who was loitering, refused to show ID, supposedly did not "follow orders," and supposedly threw his elbows at the cops. The victim died four hours later. Tasering had the same effect as shooting him would have had (death); does anyone believe this situation was worth using lethal force?

IMO if a LEO discharging a taser were treated the same as discharging a firearm (automatic leave, automatic investigation), it would reduce these incidents a lot.

Police forces are a necessary evil in society, and by their very nature some LEOs will go on power trips and abuse the public. Use of tasers in pointless power plays does seem to be getting out of control. A free society can only exist if there are strong, severe checks against such abuse. There currently do not seem to be, as the vast majority of these cases seem to result in no sanction against the officer or department.

LEOs in Florida have also taken to tasering hurricane victims who want to go home to protect their property and protect it from looting:

http://www.local10.com/news/3659012/detail.html

The cops sure weren't going to defend the property from looting or put up tarps to prevent additional water damage; instead they focused their time on tasering a frustrated dad in front of his family to boost their ego and prove that they are in power.

I agree with the premise of the OP. IMO more and more tasering incidents are being reported that are clearly not about safety for the officer or the public but are clearly about the LEO proving that he is "in charge" and the most powerful person in the situation. This kind of behavior is inevitable out of some individuals when their training focuses on making sure they dominate/control every situation.

And just like the tendancy to completely empty your gun in a shooting situation (ever notice how people shot by police are often shot 10, 20, or even 30+ times), there seems to be a tendancy of police on adrenaline rushes to keep firing tasers against individuals that are clearly already incapacitated. (The repeated gunshots make sense in the context of ensuring you stop a true threat, but the repeated taserings do not as the aim is incapacitation, not death, and most of the victims are clearly already incapacitated at the time of the additional taserings.)

In this case (http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/12/06/taser.html) (second article (http://www.nbc4i.com/news/5486903/detail.html) ) police tasered a 68-year-old woman who was waiting in a police station to give a statement, got tired of waiting, and got up to leave. Cops didn't like that, tasered her, ordered her to "get up" as she was writhing on the ground in agony, and continued to taser her for refusing to follow the order to get up. All in all she was tasered 5 times and had to be taken to a hospital.

Tasers do kill people. In this case (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_hit_9_times_41_dies_4_hours_after_arrest.ht m) police tasered a guy who was loitering, refused to show ID, supposedly did not "follow orders," and supposedly threw his elbows at the cops. The victim died four hours later. Tasering had the same effect as shooting him would have had (death); does anyone believe this situation was worth using lethal force?

IMO if a LEO discharging a taser were treated the same as discharging a firearm (automatic leave, automatic investigation), it would reduce these incidents a lot.

Police forces are a necessary evil in society, and by their very nature some LEOs will go on power trips and abuse the public. Use of tasers in pointless power plays does seem to be getting out of control. A free society can only exist if there are strong, severe checks against such abuse. There currently do not seem to be, as the vast majority of these cases seem to result in no sanction against the officer or department.

Get a clue. The poor grandma was trying to escape. She was "waiting to give a statement" in regards to her own domestic violence arrest. Tasers are ment to be used in lieu of physocal contact. They are safer than chokeholds, battons. Best of all, after you are tased the pain goes away.

Get a clue. The poor grandma was trying to escape. She was "waiting to give a statement" in regards to her own domestic violence arrest. Tasers are ment to be used in lieu of physocal contact. They are safer than chokeholds, battons. Best of all, after you are tased the pain goes away.

Get a clue. All it would have taken were two officers taking one arm each, bringing her back to her seat and shackle her there. No need to taser her and taser her again for being unable to move because she was tasered.

If a police officer is unable to tackle a 68 year old grandma without the help of a taser I am really feeling unsafe.

HTB.

Get a clue. All it would have taken were two officers taking one arm each, bringing her back to her seat and shackle her there. No need to taser her and taser her again for being unable to move because she was tasered.

If a police officer is unable to tackle a 68 year old grandma without the help of a taser I am really feeling unsafe.

HTB.

Tasering is still safer than grabing her by an arm. Why is her age relevant? Tasers allow officers to sublue suspects quickly and without hurting the suspect or themselves. And ive seen some 70 year old grannies who can put up a fight. After all, wasn't this grannt busted for domestic violence? Now who needs to get a clue? Anything to hate the police.... sigh

Cop instigated the grabbing in the Saginaw story.

Mother yelled at cop in the second but did not touch in the Madison story (what do they say about getting between a mother bear and her cub?)

No contact with or movement towards cop in the third story.Many departments are now encouraging TASER use in any situation where the officer would otherwise be grappling with a resistive person. This is because there is substantial potential for injury to the officer, the resistive person, or both in a close-quarters situation, and there is a very low potential for injury with a TASER, where the officer and the resistive person are typically several feet apart. The TASER cartridge (they're one-use items) costs about $25. If anyone has to go to the emergency room, even for minor road rash, you're looking at several hundred dollars, and much more serious injuries are common in close-quarters situations.

So the consequences of disobeying an orderin America is potential death??I suppose anything can be said to cause potential death, but the TASER has been proven to be about the safest means for taking down a resistive person. I received an e-mail from TASER International just today, noting their 26th consecutive defense verdict in cases where TASER has been sued on a wrongful death claim. These are verdicts, not settlements - TASER prefers to go to trial.

Television has taught people that cops know secret stuff whereby they can take down physicially superior bad guys instantly and without injury. In fact, injuries to both parties are commonplace anytime an officer has to go "hands on" to restrain a resistive person. And this also means that there is a potential for a low-energy confrontation to become high-energy, because there is always at least one gun involved in the equation - the officer's. From 2000-2004, about 6% (17) of the 287 law enforcement officers who were killed with firearms were shot with their own guns.

And I would also ask that you examine your own experience here. Most of us, most men, anyway, have been in a fight or two, although the last one might have been in grade school. Have you ever been in a fight for your life? A cop who loses a fight is probably going to lose his gun. If he loses his gun, there is an excellent chance he will be killed with it. Minor incidents like the ones you described can mushroom into major donnybrooks in much less time than it takes to explain the process. The TASER virtually eliminates the chance of that happening, and has the lowest injury rate of any less-lethal device to be brought onto the market.

Your question about disobeying an order infers to me that you are a person who challenges authority, and authority figures in particular, because you think it is the right thing to do in America. You are entitled to any belief you choose, and I will not even begin to claim that all orders given by police are lawful, rational, and necessary. I know too many cops who have acted otherwise. I also know that challenging the authority of a law enforcement officer in the field invites a battle that you will almost never win, and will result in you losing your freedom and possibly your health. In the field, whether that be at roadside, at school, in an airport, or even in your living room, Mr. Officer Is Always Right. The place to challenge his authority and actions is during your constitutionally-guaranteed court appearance, where an unbiased and disinterested arbiter can hear all sides and render a decision.

By the way, I capitalize the letters in TASER because it is actually an acronym: Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle. The inventor had a sense of humor. You can win a bar bet or two with that.

I realize safety and security is germane discussion in this forum, but this particular thread is pretty far out of the domain of travel safety/security. Please continue the discussion in Newsstand.

----------
essxjay
Travel Safety/Security moderator

Oh my, this is terrible. I guess I'm going to have to stop kicking, threatening and provoking police officers.

Oh wait, I don't do that, so I guess I don't need to worry about it.

Oh, please.

First, police operate (generally) on the force+1 method. Whatever force you use will be responded to with *at least* the equivalent+1. So figure that out in a shoving match.

Second, in my home town (150K people) there were 300+ hundred arrests last month for everything from hitting someone with a baby seat (!!) to murder. There were exactly two taser incidents, with only one deployment. There were four incidents of cops pulling guns, and one shooting (hit two peeps - good shot!).

So, here at least, you're much more likely to have a gun pulled on you than a taser, though they're more likely to use the taser. See force hierarchy above.

Feel free to come to the US, we're quite nice. Don't show your *ss to a US copy any more than you would to a French Gendarme though.

I haven't heard anything about visiting foreigners having cops strike them with these things. At least not yet. :eek:

LEOs in Florida have also taken to tasering hurricane victims who want to go home to protect their property and protect it from looting:

http://www.local10.com/news/3659012/detail.html

The cops sure weren't going to defend the property from looting or put up tarps to prevent additional water damage; instead they focused their time on tasering a frustrated dad in front of his family to boost their ego and prove that they are in power.Not that I'm going to convince you to consider another point of view, as it's clear to me that your mind is already made up about why cops do anything...

When cops are keeping people out of an evacuated or otherwise hazardous area, it means all the people. Everyone has a great reason as to why they should be allowed back in. The problem is that looters look just like everyone else (and otherwise law-abiding people can become looters if they know that no one is watching). There is also the issue that allowing people back into a closed area invites exactly the situation that the area was evacuated for - to prevent injuries and the loss of life resulting from whatever caused the evacuation order to be given. If you have that much difficulty with evacuation orders, complain to your lawmakers and see if there is support for removing the authority for government to use force to evacuate or secure an evacuated area.

I agree with the premise of the OP. IMO more and more tasering incidents are being reported that are clearly not about safety for the officer or the public but are clearly about the LEO proving that he is "in charge" and the most powerful person in the situation. This kind of behavior is inevitable out of some individuals when their training focuses on making sure they dominate/control every situation. Well, you know, you've got me there. Police are trained to make sure they control and dominate every situation, because that is what they are there for. They are authority figures, which you clearly resent. And, in most situations where there is a confrontation involving a police officer, the police are "in charge." That you do not like this does not mean that the police are wrong.

And just like the tendancy to completely empty your gun in a shooting situation (ever notice how people shot by police are often shot 10, 20, or even 30+ times), I know of two incidents like this, and my job requires that I follow these things pretty closely. It's difficult to track this precisely, but there are at least 1000 officer-involved shootings each year in this country. Can you supply any information that validates your claim that people are "often shot 10, 20 or 30+ times?" And have you ever had someone actively trying to kill you? I have (and I shot back - once), and the experience is nothing remotely like the movies or TV.


there seems to be a tendancy of police on adrenaline rushes to keep firing tasers against individuals that are clearly already incapacitated. (The repeated gunshots make sense in the context of ensuring you stop a true threat, but the repeated taserings do not as the aim is incapacitation, not death, and most of the victims are clearly already incapacitated at the time of the additional taserings.)You are demonstrating that you know little or nothing about how TASERs work. A TASER can only fire twice before it must be reloaded. Officers do not usually carry spare cartridges in the field, and I don't know anyone that carries them on their person. Once the TASER is fired and has made contact, the current will flow as long as the officer pulls the trigger. Have officers been overzealous in doing this, shocking people more than was necessary? Sure. Cops get angry or amped-up, like everyone else, and they occasionally do things they shouldn't do. But I'm going to guess that there are at least 100 TASER uses every day, and very few of them make the papers.

In this case (http://www.wcpo.com/news/2005/local/12/06/taser.html) (second article (http://www.nbc4i.com/news/5486903/detail.html) ) police tasered a 68-year-old woman who was waiting in a police station to give a statement, got tired of waiting, and got up to leave. Cops didn't like that, tasered her, ordered her to "get up" as she was writhing on the ground in agony, and continued to taser her for refusing to follow the order to get up. All in all she was tasered 5 times and had to be taken to a hospital.Reading this a bit more carefully, she was shocked five times, or at least that is her claim. She is apparently none the worse for wear because of it. I also noted that she was in the police station "to be arrested for hitting her granddaughter." Are you of the opinion that the police should have allowed her to leave?

This incident happened almost a year ago. Have you done any research to find how this has played out, or is the sensationalized "cop tortures grandma" story enough for your agenda?

Tasers do kill people. In this case (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/tasers_hit_9_times_41_dies_4_hours_after_arrest.ht m) police tasered a guy who was loitering, refused to show ID, supposedly did not "follow orders," and supposedly threw his elbows at the cops. The victim died four hours later. Tasering had the same effect as shooting him would have had (death); does anyone believe this situation was worth using lethal force?As I pointed out in another post, there has yet to be a verdict against TASER in a wrongful death case. In most the cases I have read, the deceased person has been under the influence of a substantial amount of illicit drugs at the time of his passing. Every judge and jury thus far has decided that the drugs had a lot more to do with the death than did the TASER. Therefore, your inference that the TASER amounts to "lethal force" and that "Tasers do kill people" is without merit.

IMO if a LEO discharging a taser were treated the same as discharging a firearm (automatic leave, automatic investigation), it would reduce these incidents a lot.I don't know of a police agency that doesn't require a use of force report in every case where a TASER is used. Supervisors review these reports and investigate further if there are suspicious circumstances. But putting every cop who fired a TASER on administrative leave would decimate police ranks even more than they are already. The cops might enjoy the extra time off, but that's all it would accomplish.

Police forces are a necessary evil in society, and by their very nature some LEOs will go on power trips and abuse the public. I have much the same sentiment about uninformed people that attack the public employees that protect them, without putting forth any effort to understand both sides of the story. Do you believe everything you see on the six o'clock news, or that you read on the internet?

Use of tasers in pointless power plays does seem to be getting out of control. A free society can only exist if there are strong, severe checks against such abuse. There currently do not seem to be, as the vast majority of these cases seem to result in no sanction against the officer or department.Have you even considered that "the vast majority of these cases" are appropriate, reasoned uses of the least amount of force required to resolve the incident, and that is why officers were not sanctioned? Is it meaningless to you that, so far, TASER has been taken to trial 26 times on wrongful death claims, and has prevailed every time?

If you would like to examine some of this evidence yourself, TASER's press release list is here (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129937&p=irol-news) . That is only the 2006 press releases, and they were on defense verdict #12 in January. There are also a number of incidents detailed where the TASER was used in a situation that might have otherwise required deadly force.

It is unfortunate that people are so ill-behaved that it is necessary to deploy armed agents to maintain order and prevent injury to innocent citizens. But we have had these agents since at least the days of the Roman Empire, and they have always had plenty to do.

Tasering is still safer than grabing her by an arm.

Anything to hate the police.... sigh

Please cite at least one case where grabbing a woman by the arm resulted in her death. Alternatively, please cite at least one case where an unarmed not-on-drugs senior citizen female in a police station surrounded by other police officers successfully attacked an officer resulting in danger to the officers or innocent persons, as that would justify this use of force against the woman.

I don't hate the police, but I do fear them. Even if 98+% percent of them are just trying to do their job well, there's still decent a chance of running into a dangerous power tripper in a dark alley, and like other's have posted, the LEO will win. Even in your own living room, and even if they are invading and searching the wrong house due to their own error. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/287548_wronghouse05.html?source=mypi)

Please cite at least one case where grabbing a woman by the arm resulted in her death. I don't believe anyone except you has made any reference to such a case. However, "grabbing a woman by the arm" does have a high likelihood of causing injury to the woman, and also puts the officer in a position for a gun-grab. Using a TASER puts distance between the suspect and officer, and is highly unlikely to result in any injury to anyone.

Alternatively, please cite at least one case where an unarmed not-on-drugs senior citizen female in a police station surrounded by other police officers successfully attacked an officer resulting in danger to the officers or innocent persons, as that would justify this use of force against the woman.The same issues apply. Further, I noted that in the still frame of the video appearing with the report of this incident, no other officers are visible. Do you know for a fact that the lieutenant was acting in concert with other officers? In most of the law enforcement agencies I am familiar with, lieutenants do not routinely make arrests. I suspect that he was waiting for a patrol officer to take her into custody and book her. And, how do you know that she wasn't on drugs?

I don't hate the police, but I do fear them. Even if 98+% percent of them are just trying to do their job well, there's still decent a chance of running into a dangerous power tripper in a dark alley, and like other's have posted, the LEO will win. Even in your own living room, and even if they [URL=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/287548_wronghouse05.html?source=mypi]are invading and searching the wrong house due to their own error.And, when I was a cop, I feared running into someone that would try to agitate a crowd during a routine arrest ("I AM AN INNOCENT MAN! POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY!), and turn it into a near riot. That fear is based on it happening a few times, usually with someone who had lots of experience getting arrested. Just a shot in the dark here, but have you ever considered doing something like that?

I have no fear of police. On the other hand, I seem to be able to go about my business for multi-decade-long stretches and never come to their attention. I did get two speeding tickets when I was 21, but that was during the Nixon administration, and I had done what the officers charged me with, so I paid them.

You're reaching some for sensational displays of police misfeasance, but, yes, the "wrong house" search warrant service does occur now and again. I don't have any numbers on this, but I suspect your chances of having that happen to you are consistent with being struck by lightning while you're on your way to redeem the winning Powerball ticket.

Here's a suggestion: if a police officer asks you to do something, do it. Don't ask why, don't tell him you know the law, don't complain about how you've done nothing wrong. There are any number of factors working here that you may know nothing about. When it's done, make a complaint about his conduct to his agency, challenge his authority in court, and/or file a civil action against him. None of those things will get you or the officer injured, and you might even get some money and satisfaction out of it. Of course, there is also the chance that you will just look stupid, but everything has a downside.

Everyone has a great reason as to why they should be allowed back in. The problem is that looters look just like everyone else (and otherwise law-abiding people can become looters if they know that no one is watching). There is also the issue that allowing people back into a closed area invites exactly the situation that the area was evacuated for - to prevent injuries and the loss of life resulting from whatever caused the evacuation order to be given. If you have that much difficulty with evacuation orders,

The problem is that if the residents leave, they are not allowed back in to defend their property against looters or further damage, but if they ignore the evacuation order, they are generally free to stay and protect their property against both looters and water/storm damage. The logical lesson for the public to take from it all is that if you feel you will survive the storm, you should ignore the evacuation order and stay with your property. I don't think that's the lesson the authorities want to be teaching. Letting residents (i.e., guy in minivan with family and DL/documents matching address in the evacuation area) back into the area as soon as humanly possible (i.e., rain stopped, all live power/gas lines shut off, but nothing more) would alleviate these situations.


Well, you know, you've got me there. Police are trained to make sure they control and dominate every situation, because that is what they are there for. They are authority figures, which you clearly resent. And, in most situations where there is a confrontation involving a police officer, the police are "in charge." That you do not like this does not mean that the police are wrong.


I accept the need for authority figures as a "necessary evil" in an orderly society, but my belief is that the presence of TASERS encourages officers to use force to "maintain control" in situations where it might be just as good to let the situation be and catch the offender later in a non-confrontation. Kind of like policies to not always engage in high speed chases when there is not a violent/felony offense and it will be plenty easy to catch the offender at home later. TASERs encourage escalation and apparently discourage thinking about if escalation is the correct course of action.

(As an aside, I had a close relative who a few years ago was broadsided by a red-light running driver being pursued at high speed by the police, was left for dead by the police who thought there's no way he could have survived the hit, was left permanently disabled, and to my knowledge never received any compensation from the police for what IMO was an unnecessarily dangerous pursuit that resulted in permanent disabling injury to an innocent citizen.)



Can you supply any information that validates your claim that people are "often shot 10, 20 or 30+ times?"


N.Y Police Kill Street Peddler, 41 Shots Fired at Unarmed Man (http://www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this/020699nypdkill.html)

Like I said, I understand the theory behind firing multiple shots to ensure stopping a true threat--someone trying to kill you. I do not understand logic, other than power tripping, for repeatedly pulling the trigger on a TASER when used against a knowingly unarmed individual. Training and psychological screening of LEO candidates and alleviate both the "amped up" issue and the issue of issuing orders to the TASEd person that they are unable to comply with as a result of the shock and then shocking them again as punishment for noncompliance.



And have you ever had someone actively trying to kill you? I have (and I shot back - once), and the experience is nothing remotely like the movies or TV.


Thankfully no. To paraphrase John Adams (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_Adams/) my father and grandfathers studied war so that I could study mathematics, philosophy, and navigation (travel). For that I am grateful.


As I pointed out in another post, there has yet to be a verdict against TASER in a wrongful death case. In most the cases I have read, the deceased person has been under the influence of a substantial amount of illicit drugs at the time of his passing. Every judge and jury thus far has decided that the drugs had a lot more to do with the death than did the TASER. Therefore, your inference that the TASER amounts to "lethal force" and that "Tasers do kill people" is without merit.


That TASER vigorously defends cases against their product (as is their right) does not convince me that people are not dead who would otherwise not be dead if they had not been shocked. Of course TASER is going to fight these cases; if they are once found responsible for a death their business model will tank.


There are also a number of incidents detailed where the TASER was used in a situation that might have otherwise required deadly force.


I fully support the use of TASERs as an alternative to deadly force. (when viable, as clearly deadly force is sometimes required.) My concern is the use of TASERs in cases where deadly force (and maybe any force) is clearly not necessary, i.e., passive resistance, failure to follow non life/death instructions, unarmed person walks out of police station, etc.

To stay a bit travel related, given the inconsistencies in TSA policy implementation, the confrontational/hostile environment created by TSA at the checkpoint, and the presence of LEOs many of which probably have TASERs at most checkpoints, I think it is inevitable that in the next few years a passenger will be TASEd by police as a result of a misunderstanding over a permitted item like toiletries or a bookmark (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=356014&page=1) .

I think it is only appropriate to warn visitors, especially those from countries where the only weapon carried by most LEOs is a baton and the police are famously tolerant of weird off-color behavior, that police in America are likely to carry these weapons and likely to use them in situations where the visitor might not expect force to be used.

N.Y Police Kill Street Peddler, 41 Shots Fired at Unarmed Man (http://www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this/020699nypdkill.html)

Like I said, I understand the theory behind firing multiple shots to ensure stopping a true threat--someone trying to kill you. I do not understand logic, other than power tripping, for repeatedly pulling the trigger on a TASER when used against a knowingly unarmed individual. Training and psychological screening of LEO candidates and alleviate both the "amped up" issue and the issue of issuing orders to the TASEd person that they are unable to comply with as a result of the shock and then shocking them again as punishment for noncompliance.




Thankfully no. To paraphrase John Adams (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/John_Adams/) my father and grandfathers studied war so that I could study mathematics, philosophy, and navigation (travel). For that I am grateful.

I remember that tragic incident however if i remember correctly mr.diallo didnt listen to the police instructions and reached for his pocket instead of putting his hands up..While 41 shots was extremely excessive if you patroled that area of the south bronx one could understand why the cops pulled the trigger quickly..
Cheers
howie

Let's see, I am 45, have lived in the US all my life and have never been tasered. In fact, nobody in my family has either. Nor has any of my friends or acquaintances. Can't remember reading about a lot of taser incidents in the paper either.

I think all you visitors to the US can rest easy about being tasered.

Tasering is still safer than grabing her by an arm. Why is her age relevant? Tasers allow officers to sublue suspects quickly and without hurting the suspect or themselves. And ive seen some 70 year old grannies who can put up a fight. After all, wasn't this grannt busted for domestic violence? Now who needs to get a clue? Anything to hate the police.... sigh


Personally, I think if you are going to be a police officer or a soldier (or enter another similar profession), you should have to err on the side of caution - for the civilian, not for yourself. Shouting at, manhandling, tasering, truncheoning, shooting and all the other things american security personnel are renowned for these days don't resolve problems when used against regular people. They just cause new issues, especially since it is now quite legitimate to play the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth game. If I were a policeman that tasered someone's mum, i would watch my back for many years since the children would be well within their rights to seek revenge at a time and in a manner of their choosing. ;)

The problem is that if the residents leave, they are not allowed back in to defend their property against looters or further damage, but if they ignore the evacuation order, they are generally free to stay and protect their property against both looters and water/storm damage. The logical lesson for the public to take from it all is that if you feel you will survive the storm, you should ignore the evacuation order and stay with your property. Yes, that tactic worked so well for all those folks that were standing on their rooftops after Hurricane Katrina, expecting helicopters to rescue them. The idea is that you can expend limited resources on protecting the evacuated area, and not have to stage a mass rescue of people that were too stupid to leave. Perhaps we should have a "take your chances" exemption, whereby if you remain behind, you acknowledge that you're on your own, no matter what. I think that would fly for an hour or so.

I don't think that's the lesson the authorities want to be teaching. Letting residents (i.e., guy in minivan with family and DL/documents matching address in the evacuation area) back into the area as soon as humanly possible (i.e., rain stopped, all live power/gas lines shut off, but nothing more) would alleviate these situations.And if that guy and his family decide to go shopping in the ruins of other people's houses (note what happened in New Orleans as soon as the cops weren't around), how do you handle that? How much do you trust your neighbors?

I accept the need for authority figures as a "necessary evil" in an orderly society, but my belief is that the presence of TASERS encourages officers to use force to "maintain control" in situations where it might be just as good to let the situation be and catch the offender later in a non-confrontation. Kind of like policies to not always engage in high speed chases when there is not a violent/felony offense and it will be plenty easy to catch the offender at home later. TASERs encourage escalation and apparently discourage thinking about if escalation is the correct course of action.Actually, it's not so easy to catch someone later. First, you have to know who he is, and you have to be able to prove that he was the one responsible. Not always a lock there. Then you have to accept that he might go someplace else and continue his antisocial activity, leaving you with two incidents to clean up. Third, you have to know where he lives, and people who get arrested a lot tend to be transient. There's a reason that police procedures have evolved to the current level of practice. It's harder than it looks.

(As an aside, I had a close relative who a few years ago was broadsided by a red-light running driver being pursued at high speed by the police, was left for dead by the police who thought there's no way he could have survived the hit, was left permanently disabled, and to my knowledge never received any compensation from the police for what IMO was an unnecessarily dangerous pursuit that resulted in permanent disabling injury to an innocent citizen.)I'm sorry for your relative, but I find the story a bit incredible. A fleeing vehicle broadsides a car, and is still capable of continuing the pursuit? And not one police unit checks the struck vehicle for injuries? Further, did your relative make a claim against the police, or just expect a check to arrive? And what level of culpability does the driver of the fleeing vehicle have in this? If you're looking to blame the police for every bad end that comes out of any incident where they are involved, you'll find a way. But it strikes me that you need to consider the role of the person that caused the police to get involved in the first place.

N.Y Police Kill Street Peddler, 41 Shots Fired at Unarmed Man (http://www.refuseandresist.org/resist_this/020699nypdkill.html) Amadou Diallo. Yes, I am aware of that case, and I agree that the conduct was over the top. But your claim was that people are "often shot 10, 20 or 30+ times" (emphasis mine). By that standard, it would be fair for me to say, "Muslims are frequently flying airliners into tall office buildings." Hey, it happened twice.

Like I said, I understand the theory behind firing multiple shots to ensure stopping a true threat--someone trying to kill you. I do not understand logic, other than power tripping, for repeatedly pulling the trigger on a TASER when used against a knowingly unarmed individual. Training and psychological screening of LEO candidates and alleviate both the "amped up" issue and the issue of issuing orders to the TASEd person that they are unable to comply with as a result of the shock and then shocking them again as punishment for noncompliance.And, once again, is your sole source of information a news item on a web site? Have you witnessed one or twenty of these incidents? Do you know that the person was "unable to comply," or are you just assuming that was the case?

By the way, police officers are both psychologically screened and trained. A police chief of a medium size (280 officers) agency recently told me that he is lucky to have one viable recruit officer for every 100 applications he receives. Last week's Time magazine reported that the average pay of a police officer in the U.S. is a bit over $48K. How many jobs at that level of compensation do you know of that are that choosy?


my father and grandfathers studied war so that I could study mathematics, philosophy, and navigation (travel). For that I am grateful.In this study of mathematics, philosophy and navigation, how did you come to know so much about police practices and procedures? Or, is your "education" mainly from the popular media?

That TASER vigorously defends cases against their product (as is their right) does not convince me that people are not dead who would otherwise not be dead if they had not been shocked. Of course TASER is going to fight these cases; if they are once found responsible for a death their business model will tank.Don't you think they would lose now and again if the facts weren't on their side? There's a limit to what you can do with fancy lawyering. What exactly would "convince me that people are not dead who would otherwise not be dead if they had not been shocked"? And what evidence do you have that is so persuasive that you were convinced of this in the first place?

I fully support the use of TASERs as an alternative to deadly force. (when viable, as clearly deadly force is sometimes required.) My concern is the use of TASERs in cases where deadly force (and maybe any force) is clearly not necessary, i.e., passive resistance, failure to follow non life/death instructions, unarmed person walks out of police station, etc.And this is where you are missing the point. The TASER is not an alternative to deadly force. I think the TASER folks would have no problem with that statement. If an officer finds himself in a deadly force situation, he responds with deadly force. He doesn't try an inferior level of force to see if it might work. Officers that do this get their names engraved on a wall in Washington, D.C. They also don't try to shoot a gun/knife/baseball bat out of someone's hand. That works well in the movies, but it's a bit harder to pull off in real world conditions.

The TASER is intended as a less-lethal option, like pepper spray, or a baton, or a police dog. It has the advantage of being close to 100% effective, and yet causing no injury to the officer or the suspect. Yes, it hurts like a sonovab****, and it's undignified to have your friends see you doing the chicken on the pavement, right in the middle of trash-talking the cop. But one has to appreciate that the person on the receiving end of the juice bears some responsibility for placing him/herself in that position.

To stay a bit travel related, given the inconsistencies in TSA policy implementation, the confrontational/hostile environment created by TSA at the checkpoint, and the presence of LEOs many of which probably have TASERs at most checkpoints, I think it is inevitable that in the next few years a passenger will be TASEd by police as a result of a misunderstanding over a permitted item like toiletries or a bookmark (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=356014&page=1) .That's entirely possible, although I have never seen a TASER being carried by an airport police officer. I don't know if that's just coincidence or whether there is some tactical reasoning for not deploying them there. I do know that it is extremely unlikely that anyone will get a TASER used on them if they follow the directions of the TSA people or LEOs that they encounter. I get annoyed at the TSA, like everyone else, but I don't make a scene of it at the checkpoint. If I think I am sufficiently wronged, I'll make a complaint and take it up that way. I can't think of anything I have ever taken on an airplane that was worth getting arrested for. As I said previously, at the checkpoint, Mr. Officer Is Always Right. You are not going to win a confrontation there, and your day is almost certainly going to go downhill if you try. And if you get shot, tased, or just arrested, I don't think it will be because the cop was bored and picked you out of the line to mess with.


I think it is only appropriate to warn visitors, especially those from countries where the only weapon carried by most LEOs is a baton and the police are famously tolerant of weird off-color behavior, that police in America are likely to carry these weapons and likely to use them in situations where the visitor might not expect force to be used.The only country I know of where this description might apply is the UK, and the trend is to arm more of their officers. They also take their security much more seriously than we do here. As for other countries where the police are unarmed except for a baton, I would fear them. Those forces tend to be notoriously corrupt and accountable only to themselves. Count your blessings that most of your encounters with law enforcement, confrontational or otherwise, will be with American cops.

I'm sorry for your relative, but I find the story a bit incredible. A fleeing vehicle broadsides a car, and is still capable of continuing the pursuit? And not one police unit checks the struck vehicle for injuries? Further, did your relative make a claim against the police, or just expect a check to arrive? And what level of culpability does the driver of the fleeing vehicle have in this? If you're looking to blame the police for every bad end that comes out of any incident where they are involved, you'll find a way. But it strikes me that you need to consider the role of the person that caused the police to get involved in the first place.


Sorry for not being clear. There was no continuation of pursuit after the impact, which was in a traffic-light controlled intersection which was green for my uncle and red for the pursuee. Both vehicles were destroyed; both drivers ended up in the hospital. My understanding (from my uncle) is that the police failed to check my uncle's vehicle and didn't realize he was alive until he stumbled out of the remains of his car. The vehicle resembled one of those heaps they put out in front of high schools before prom to scare the kids into not being stupid and driving drunk.

Personally I put 51% blame on the guy being chased and 49% on the cops. The other guy was dead within a few weeks for unrelated reasons and wouldn't have had any assets to pursue anyway.

And this is where you are missing the point. The TASER is not an alternative to deadly force. I think the TASER folks would have no problem with that statement. If an officer finds himself in a deadly force situation, he responds with deadly force. He doesn't try an inferior level of force to see if it might work. Officers that do this get their names engraved on a wall in Washington, D.C. They also don't try to shoot a gun/knife/baseball bat out of someone's hand. That works well in the movies, but it's a bit harder to pull off in real world conditions.

The TASER is intended as a less-lethal option, like pepper spray, or a baton, or a police dog. It has the advantage of being close to 100% effective, and yet causing no injury to the officer or the suspect.

Maybe that misunderstanding is the root of my problem. IMO TASER does portray itself to the public as an alternative to deadly force by claiming to reduce shootings (e.g., here (http://www.taser.com/documents/phoenixhootings.doc) ). Here they say (http://www.taser.com/facts/safer_law.htm), "TASER devices are reliable devices that utilize innovative technology to stop violent suspects and provide effective alternatives to lethal force." Now it is true that if you read more of the text and more of the site, you see that they are using the careful words "TASER devices are a safer use-of-force alternative," and that they really mean alternative to other "non-lethal" means like pepper spray and rubber bullets. (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3841878/detail.html) But it seems like to the public they claim to be an alternative to deadly force (which can be seen as only good and will cause citizens to demand their governments fund these weapons), while to the police they claim to provide a force-use option in cases where there previously was none. (which is the source of much of the debate)

Maybe that misunderstanding is the root of my problem. IMO TASER does portray itself to the public as an alternative to deadly force by claiming to reduce shootings (e.g., here (http://www.taser.com/documents/phoenixhootings.doc) ). Here they say (http://www.taser.com/facts/safer_law.htm), "TASER devices are reliable devices that utilize innovative technology to stop violent suspects and provide effective alternatives to lethal force." Now it is true that if you read more of the text and more of the site, you see that they are using the careful words "TASER devices are a safer use-of-force alternative," and that they really mean alternative to other "non-lethal" means like pepper spray and rubber bullets. (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3841878/detail.html) But it seems like to the public they claim to be an alternative to deadly force (which can be seen as only good and will cause citizens to demand their governments fund these weapons), while to the police they claim to provide a force-use option in cases where there previously was none. (which is the source of much of the debate)

The TASER can be used in lieu of deadly force. The point of the TASER is to prevent the officer from having to get into a physical fight with a suspect. Even a seemingly minor fight can cost lives if the suspect reaches for a the officer's gun. Evther way, fights can result in broken bones or bloody skin. Thus, the TASER is used in lieu of regular force because it is safer.

Sometimes an officer cannot use force against a suspect because he is waving a knife. The only option without a TASER against a knife wilding suspect is using a gun or maybe a police dog (maybe...). A TASER will drop the suspect in a second and the officer did not have to use his gun or risk getting cut by tacking the suspect.

Of course, just like you don't bring a knife to a gun fight, you don't bring a TASER to a gun fight. THe TASER is probably not an alternative if there is a gun involved.

Other than that, COPWRITER seems to have answered all of your questions.

In this study of mathematics, philosophy and navigation, how did you come to know so much about police practices and procedures? Or, is your "education" mainly from the popular media?


Are you saying that those of us who didn't study law enforcement, can not have an opinion on how LEO's do their job?

-----------------------

I also know that challenging the authority of a law enforcement officer in the field invites a battle that you will almost never win, and will result in you losing your freedom and possibly your health. In the field, whether that be at roadside, at school, in an airport, or even in your living room, Mr. Officer Is Always Right. The place to challenge his authority and actions is during your constitutionally-guaranteed court appearance, where an unbiased and disinterested arbiter can hear all sides and render a decision.

Well, you're half right.

Yes, in the field the cop, right or wrong, is always right. If he is going to violate you or your rights (as happens all too often) then you let him. Lay there like Rodney King and let them do whatever they want. But if you think you're going to get fair treatment in court then just ask yourself if Mr. King did.

The best place to get justice is civil court. If you're after a paycheck then you focus on the city/county/whatever. But if you're after revenge for the indignities that you suffered when Mr. Officer violated your rights then you go after him. Because let me tell you that getting a lein on Mr. Officer's house and starting forclosing proceedings will feel so much better than taking a swing ever could....

But if you're after revenge for the indignities that you suffered when Mr. Officer violated your rights then you go after him. Because let me tell you that getting a lein on Mr. Officer's house and starting forclosing proceedings will feel so much better than taking a swing ever could....

That's true!

Sorry for not being clear. There was no continuation of pursuit after the impact, which was in a traffic-light controlled intersection which was green for my uncle and red for the pursuee. Both vehicles were destroyed; both drivers ended up in the hospital. My understanding (from my uncle) is that the police failed to check my uncle's vehicle and didn't realize he was alive until he stumbled out of the remains of his car. The vehicle resembled one of those heaps they put out in front of high schools before prom to scare the kids into not being stupid and driving drunk.If the sole source of your information is from your uncle, who had just had his bell rung rather severely and sustained injuries sufficient to render him totally disabled, I think you have to consider that his perception of the chain of events might not have been completely accurate.

Personally I put 51% blame on the guy being chased and 49% on the cops. The other guy was dead within a few weeks for unrelated reasons and wouldn't have had any assets to pursue anyway.This is precisely the reason that people sue police agencies, rather than crooks - deep pockets. The local governments have money, where the bad guys are usually judgment-proof. Also, you haven't stated anything that would lead me to believe that your uncle's injuries would have been mitigated if a cop had reached him sooner. And I still don't know why the cops were chasing the bad guy. Some pursuits are more justified, and thus more worthy of taking a risk, than others. Like a lot of stories that are sensationalized or "spun" to prejudice the reader to one point of view or the other, there is a lot of information that is missing here.

Personally, I think if you are going to be a police officer or a soldier (or enter another similar profession), you should have to err on the side of caution - for the civilian, not for yourself.

This sounds a lot like the assertions I would hear when illustrating the necessity of a tactic with the circumstances of an officer that got killed when he didn't use it. "If he got killed, that was part of his job." George Patton, or at least George C. Scott when he played Patton, said, "No one ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other poor, dumb son-of-a-b**** die for his country." Cops and soldiers agree to take the risk of facing people with hostile intentions and the capacity to carry them out. Only someone with a death wish would agree to take that job with the knowledge that they would have to be more concerned for the well-being of the aggressor than for themselves.

Shouting at, manhandling, tasering, truncheoning, shooting and all the other things american security personnel are renowned for these days don't resolve problems when used against regular people.Please define "regular people." If you can offer a definitive description of what criminals or terrorists look like, as opposed to "regular people," there are quite a few folks I know that would pay money to have it.

Years back, when Daryl Gates was the chief of police at LAPD, he made a faux pas in defending the use of what is commonly known as the "choke hold" (properly called a carotid control hold or lateral vascular neck restraint) by saying "Black peoples' neck veins don't open up the same way as do normal peoples'." Oops. LA cops started referring to their patrol cars as "black and normals." :)

They just cause new issues, especially since it is now quite legitimate to play the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth game. If I were a policeman that tasered someone's mum, i would watch my back for many years since the children would be well within their rights to seek revenge at a time and in a manner of their choosing. ;)Would you be as accepting if a police officer felt that he was well within his rights to seek revenge against you for some violent transgression?

Maybe that misunderstanding is the root of my problem. IMO TASER does portray itself to the public as an alternative to deadly force by claiming to reduce shootings (e.g., here (http://www.taser.com/documents/phoenixhootings.doc) ). Here they say (http://www.taser.com/facts/safer_law.htm), "TASER devices are reliable devices that utilize innovative technology to stop violent suspects and provide effective alternatives to lethal force." Now it is true that if you read more of the text and more of the site, you see that they are using the careful words "TASER devices are a safer use-of-force alternative," and that they really mean alternative to other "non-lethal" means like pepper spray and rubber bullets. (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3841878/detail.html) But it seems like to the public they claim to be an alternative to deadly force (which can be seen as only good and will cause citizens to demand their governments fund these weapons), while to the police they claim to provide a force-use option in cases where there previously was none. (which is the source of much of the debate)I think you have to take TASER's promotional materials as a whole, and in context. A TASER can be used to control a situation that would otherwise escalate to the level of deadly force. I don't think that anyone at TASER, or anywhere else in law enforcement, would advocate that a TASER is a good choice for defense against a person with a firearm. It is also a poor choice, in most circumstances, against a person with a knife. Knives are a lot more dangerous than you might think. Look at some of the references under the Tueller Drill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill)

Are you saying that those of us who didn't study law enforcement ,can not have an opinion on how LEO's do their job?Certainly not. I have no problem with someone saying "I think" or "I believe" that such-and-such is true or should be the way things are done, and I can respond to those opinions with my own. The statements I take issue with are the ones like "people shot by police are often shot 10, 20, or even 30+ times" and "Tasers do kill people." That infers factual knowledge, and the statements are simply untrue. One incident does not equate to "often," and so far, 26 separate trials have concluded that TASERs do not kill people.

There is fact, and there is opinion. I like to make sure that one isn't confused with the other, at least within my area of expertise.

Certainly not. I have no problem with someone saying "I think" or "I believe" that such-and-such is true or should be the way things are done, and I can respond to those opinions with my own. The statements I take issue with are the ones like "people shot by police are often shot 10, 20, or even 30+ times" and "Tasers do kill people." That infers factual knowledge, and the statements are simply untrue. One incident does not equate to "often," and so far, 26 separate trials have concluded that TASERs do not kill people.

There is fact, and there is opinion. I like to make sure that one isn't confused with the other, at least within my area of expertise.

Both statements you cite in quotes -- specifically "people shot by police are often shot 10, 20, or even 30+ times" and "Tasers do kill people" -- are facts. And they remain facts unless you have some kind of firm definition for "often" and unless you want to claim that tasers have never killed people.

Instead of falsely labelling a fact an opinion, your point would be made stronger by noting that a factual statement is factual for some circumstances but is not applicable to most circumstances where XYZ happens.

Yes, in the field the cop, right or wrong, is always right. If he is going to violate you or your rights (as happens all too often) then you let him. Lay there like Rodney King and let them do whatever they want. But if you think you're going to get fair treatment in court then just ask yourself if Mr. King did. Interesting example. When that incident was in the headlines, Rodney King was usually described as a "motorist." Descriptors like "felon," "convicted armed robber" and "ex-con" would have been accurate, and would normally trump "motorist," but they would also make him less sympathetic as a victim of oppression.

I wonder if you are aware that there were three occupants of the vehicle that Rodney King was driving. The first two complied with the instructions of the police and were released at the scene, unharmed, when it was found they had committed no crime. One of them testified at the trials of the LAPD officers. The other got killed in a gang shooting three weeks later. By the way, the occupant that survived testified that King was "acting crazy" and that he was "scared" by his driving. I don't know if it's still available, but Court TV once sold a video of the state trial where this testimony is included, just in case you don't believe me.

The LAPD officers were charged with multiple criminal offenses, including several felonies, in California state court. They were acquitted by a jury on all charges, save for one where the jury was hung, and the state decided not to re-try. Then, the feds charged them again for the same conduct, held the trial in Central LA before a mostly minority jury, and still couldn't convict two of the officers. The incident doesn't look quite so excessive when you have all of the facts. The other two were convicted and sent to federal prison for a little over two years (the minimum sentence, by the way). Because the state and the federal government are separate sovereigns, this can be done without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. But, if the two governments had done this to Rodney King (or just about anyone else), would there not be a mass protest of the oppression of the defendants by a vengeful government?

Finally, Rodney did get a very large settlement, $3.8 million, from the City of Los Angeles. He didn't get the $53 million he asked for, but it was certainly more money than he would ever see otherwise. The money went mostly to his lawyers and to found a rap record label called "Straight Alta-Pazz." At last report, he was bankrupt and living in a drug rehab center. As a taxpayer, do you think that was a good purpose for that money? Did it make anything right?

The best place to get justice is civil court. If you're after a paycheck then you focus on the city/county/whatever. But if you're after revenge for the indignities that you suffered when Mr. Officer violated your rights then you go after him. Because let me tell you that getting a lein on Mr. Officer's house and starting forclosing proceedings will feel so much better than taking a swing ever could....However, that would require that a jury award punitive damages, which they almost never do. Juries seem to like to give money to people they feel sorry for, but they don't want the cops themselves to have to cough up the money. There are thousands of civil actions filed against police officers and their employers every year, most of them instigated by people "after a paycheck" (and most are dismissed, like most other civil actions, but only after they have cost the taxpayer thousands). I challenge you to find five that have resulted in a police officer defendant losing his house to the plaintiff.

By the way, police officers occasionally countersue for defamation and harassment, and those lawsuits often do result in verdicts for the plaintiff.

Both statements you cite in quotes -- specifically "people shot by police are often shot 10, 20, or even 30+ times" and "Tasers do kill people" -- are facts. And they remain facts unless you have some kind of firm definition for "often" and unless you want to claim that tasers have never killed people.I think that any reasonable definition of "often" would have to, at minimum, be "more than once," especially if the subject under discussion has occurred thousands of times, as is the case with police-involved shootings. And I have presented evidence to support my claim that TASERs have never killed people. 26 triers of fact in civil actions have concluded, in every case, that the cause of death was not the use of a TASER. When there is a finding to the contrary, you could claim some substance to the statement, even though it could be argued that you had identified a freak occurrence. But so far, not even the freak occurrence has shown up.

Your argument is one of semantics that only clouds the central issue.

I think that any reasonable definition of "often" would have to, at minimum, be "more than once," especially if the subject under discussion has occurred thousands of times, as is the case with police-involved shootings. And I have presented evidence to support my claim that TASERs have never killed people. 26 triers of fact in civil actions have concluded, in every case, that the cause of death was not the use of a TASER. When there is a finding to the contrary, you could claim some substance to the statement, even though it could be argued that you had identified a freak occurrence. But so far, not even the freak occurrence has shown up.

Your argument is one of semantics that only clouds the central issue.

Saying a fact is an opinion is a form of semantics that clouds the issue substantially. :eek:

Just because deep-pocket "experts" or those shooting tasers can avoid legal accountability for deaths involved in a taser shooting by using some "pre-existing health condition" or something of the sort doesn't change that killing was done by the jolt of electricity sent by the taser.

Just because deep-pocket "experts" or those shooting tasers can avoid legal accountability for deaths involved in a taser shooting by using some "pre-existing health condition" or something of the sort doesn't change that killing was done by the jolt of electricity sent by the taser.You seem to be missing my point. Disinterested, unbiased people who have heard all the experts on both sides, examined all the facts, and seen all the evidence have decided twenty-six times that the killing was not done by the jolt of electricity sent by the TASER. Can you make a case that you are more informed on this issue than the people who sat on the juries for these trials?

You seem to be missing my point. Disinterested, unbiased people who have heard all the experts on both sides, examined all the facts, and seen all the evidence have decided twenty-six times that the killing was not done by the jolt of electricity sent by the TASER. Can you make a case that you are more informed on this issue than the people who sat on the juries for these trials?

A few autopsies in Iraq seem to suggest otherwise. But that's torture for you. Too bad doctors get killed too. :eek:

A few autopsies in Iraq seem to suggest otherwise. But that's torture for you. Too bad doctors get killed too. :eek:Have you personally examined these autopsy reports, and do you have the medical background to evaluate them? Were the medical examiners personally knowledgeable of the workings of the TASER and its technology? Were there any other contributing factors to these deaths? And, finally, are you saying that a doctor who was to offer a medical opinion condemning the TASER would be killed? I have the impression that you are getting this information from an uninformed source with a political or ideological agenda, but if this is not the case, please set me straight.

Have you personally examined these autopsy reports, and do you have the medical background to evaluate them? Were the medical examiners personally knowledgeable of the workings of the TASER and its technology? Were there any other contributing factors to these deaths? And, finally, are you saying that a doctor who was to offer a medical opinion condemning the TASER would be killed? I have the impression that you are getting this information from an uninformed source with a political or ideological agenda, but if this is not the case, please set me straight.

I won't be setting the above straight under the current circumstances, but time will do that well enough. I am confident that anyone who values their life shouldn't be volunteering to subject themselves to multiple taser shots in special circumstances in Iraq.

Are you willing to risk your life to try to prove that tasers can't kill you? I'm not willing to take the same risk with my life.

Do you want to try it on a test bunny? I'm not that cruel. ;)

do you have the medical background to evaluate them?


He doesn't have to. The OP is ALL KNOWING, ABLE TO PREDICT, NEVER WRONG.... :rolleyes:


btw, for what it's worth, you are the only one that has some facts back your argument up, the others? nothing, but they love to debate - NOTHINGS with NOTHINGS! I wouldn't worry too much. Many of them have lost credibility long time ago, and just because many of US don't post around here anymore, we do know the difference between a credible and a useless argument..... ^

At that point, Stacer TASERed the man, which sends 50,000 volts into a person's body.

You can't "send 50,000 volts" of anything, because voltage is not a measure of current, nor of harm to human tissues. An everyday shock of static electricty can have 50,000 volts of potential. Voltage is meaningless in this regard, other than being able to rile people by sounding like a big number. TASER devices do send 0.002-0.003 amperes of current through the tissue. 0.1 amperes is generally considered lethal.

Of the three situations in the original post, I think the last is the one that best makes a case for tasers being used in unnecessary situations. If the article is correct, the guy was just standing in the wrong place, not acting in any way combative.

Personally, I think that the taser should be used only when there is a threat of *physical* violence against the cop, not just when the person isn't being cooperative. They may be less harmful than a gun, but as someone else pointed out, they can and do injure/kill people.

I won't be setting the above straight under the current circumstances, but time will do that well enough. I am confident that anyone who values their life shouldn't be volunteering to subject themselves to multiple taser shots in special circumstances in Iraq. I can't think of any reason why one would want to do that.

Are you willing to risk your life to try to prove that tasers can't kill you? I'm not willing to take the same risk with my life.

Do you want to try it on a test bunny? I'm not that cruel. ;)You might be interested to know that TASER requires everyone that trains people to use a TASER to take a hit themselves. This isn't some watered-down version of the procedure. They tell the subject, "Attack me if you can - don't give up until you have to." When the guy moves, they zap him, just as they would with someone in the field. So far as I know, it's put everyone down. There are cops in every basic class that volunteer for the same exercise, either to make themselves believers or understand the dynamics of the experience. I haven't heard of anyone dying, or even going to the hospital.

I'm not a TASER instructor, and I've never handled one, so what I know of the experience is second-hand. I did use and instruct officers in the use of pepper spray when it came into popular use in the 80s. To get certified to teach, I had to take a mega-hit of the stuff (an entire 5 oz. "burst" container was emptied into my face). It ranks as one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life. However, after I did that, I understood how the stuff worked, and I also knew that I and anyone else that got sprayed would be more or less back to normal in 30 minutes, possibly less.

So, yes, if I were to go into the field with a TASER, I'd take the hit. I don't know if that is what you mean by risking my life to prove that TASERs can't kill me, but I actually don't know how I could prove that.

The discussion has gotten off track, though. The points I set out to make were

TASERs are not deadly weapons
TASERs are the most effective non-lethal measure available for police to handle resistive subjects
TASERs are not inhumane, even if they do hurt like hell
There are some simple steps one can take to avoid being on the receiving end of a TASER

I haven't seen anyone make a compelling argument against these assertions.

Uses of force, by cops or anyone else, are not pretty. One should avoid them to the greatest extent possible, and that goes for people on both ends of the force transaction. No one has come up with a force option that is both effective and painless. The best we have been able to do so far is produce one that is effective and non-lethal. Having been in many force situations, on both sides of the transaction, I'm here to tell you that's huge.

In a perfect world, I suppose that anyone who was confronted by an authority figure and asked to do something they didn't want to do would be able to debate the topic to their satisfaction and bring the other party around to their point of view without open hostilities. Or maybe a perfect would would just have no authority figures. It's an academic argument, because I don't think we will see a perfect world in our lifetimes.

In the meantime, there are people that make rules, and you are going to be asked to follow them. If you resist this, there are likely to be consequences. You don't have to like the rules, the people that made them, or the consequences, but everyone will probably be better off if you go with the flow and make your protests in the venue created for that purpose. And if you still cling to the mantra that no badge-wearing goon is going to tell you what to do, then you may find yourself doing the aforementioned and undignified chicken before being handcuffed and led off to jail. I'm not concerned about this happening to me, but if you are, don't say you weren't warned.

I can't think of any reason why one would want to do that.

I can think of one very good reason to start ... and then a few more. But that's about it for clarification.

You might be interested to know that TASER requires everyone that trains people to use a TASER to take a hit themselves.

So I've heard with the company training. Also familiar with the fact that it's not just those directly trained by the company who are using them. ;)

The discussion has gotten off track, though. The points I set out to make were

TASERs are not deadly weapons
TASERs are the most effective non-lethal measure available for police to handle resistive subjects
TASERs are not inhumane, even if they do hurt like hell
There are some simple steps one can take to avoid being on the receiving end of a TASER


Tasers can kill and have killed before.

Tasers can and have been used for inhumane purposes.

Some cannot avoid being subjected to being on the receiving end of a taser.

As I said in my original post to this thread, it's not likely that I will change your mind if it has already been made up. We're getting to the circular discussion - I say that TASERs are not deadly weapons, while you say they are. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

As I said in my original post to this thread, it's not likely that I will change your mind if it has already been made up. We're getting to the circular discussion - I say that TASERs are not deadly weapons, while you say they are. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Tasers can and have been used to kill people.

Water can be used to kill people too. Neither, when used as a weapon, kills humanely.

Just my insights on being tasered.

A few years back, I enrolled for a citizen's police academy. Basically it's a public relations campaign by police departments to show citizens how the police departments really work. It's a bit tougher than I imagined. We did some physical training, classroom training on laws and procedures, weapons training with firearms, batons, tasers, pepper spray, and arrest control techniques.

I learned that there is a force table to be followed. Different departments have different levels of force to be used and different situations to use them. In general, at the bottom is verbal commands, then control holds, then less than lethal weapons such as the baton and taser, then lethal force. The general principle is escalation of force by one as deemed necessary in situations. So if somebody isn't complying, you generally use verbal commands to direct them where to go or what to do. But somebody comes at you swinging, getting into a fistfight simply makes it equal, you need to escalate to less than lethal options such as a baton or taser. If somebody comes at you with a bat or knife, those are considered deadly weapons, then you need to stop him by going to the top of the force table.

But back to the academy. One day, we had an interesting day of training. The staff said we would be getting trained in the taser. But we had to experiece the opposite end of it. So they hooked us up to the taser barbs, rather than shoot us with them and ruin our clothes. The staff then pulled the trigger. The sensation isn't really pain or the feeling of an electric shock, but more of an agonizing charley horse, perhaps 10 times worse. I've felt a similar, yet much milder sensation when I was given TENS electric muscle stimulation by a physical therapist for my tendonitis back in college. I dropped to the ground as my muscles involuntarily seized up. The staff let off the trigger and my muscles returned to normal in about 15 seconds. They said I was tased for about 8 seconds. Make no mistake, the feeling is very unpleasant, as a charley horse is unpleasant, and it's something I would avoid doing again.

The tasing is conductive, so you can't grab somebody that is being tased. The staff also had somebody grab onto another person that had the taser barbs attached, and both got tased.

What sucks was that for the rest of the day, we got pepper sprayed, then at the end of the day, we went to the gas chamber at the decommissioned MCAS El Toro to get tear gassed. Funnn... :mad:


Steve

let's keep our comments directed at our opinions and not at other FlyerTalk members. Thanks!

--richard, moderator

Let's see, I am 45, have lived in the US all my life and have never been tasered. In fact, nobody in my family has either. Nor has any of my friends or acquaintances. Can't remember reading about a lot of taser incidents in the paper either.

I think all you visitors to the US can rest easy about being tasered.Sorry, that is way too reasonable - off to Omni with you!

Some cannot avoid being subjected to being on the receiving end of a taser.

You can certainly take steps to avoid being tasered. Somehow I've managed to make it through life so far without being handcuffed, tasered, shot, etc by the police. Perhaps it's because I listen and comply when dealing with them. What a revolutionary thought :rolleyes:

You can certainly take steps to avoid being tasered. Somehow I've managed to make it through life so far without being handcuffed, tasered, shot, etc by the police. Perhaps it's because I listen and comply when dealing with them. What a revolutionary thought :rolleyes:

Some cannot necessarily avoid being hit with a taser -- especially if been grabbed off a street and been tortured, including on the basis of mistaken "identity". :eek:

Blame the victim never gets old in some quarters. :eek:

You can certainly take steps to avoid being tasered. Somehow I've managed to make it through life so far without being handcuffed, tasered, shot, etc by the police. Perhaps it's because I listen and comply when dealing with them. What a revolutionary thought :rolleyes:And there you have it. Go along with the program, and if you've been mistreated, misidentified, or otherwise had your rights violated, take it up with the appropriate law enforcement agency and/or court later.

I used to deal with a branch of this same problem in my cop days. I worked in a city that was something of a tourist mecca. People would commonly drive there, be anxious to get to the fun stuff, and would forget where they parked their cars. The would occasionally demand that we supply a cop and a patrol car to drive them around until we found their car, and would be very upset when we told them we didn't have the manpower for that. Then, they would insist on filing a stolen vehicle report. We couldn't refuse to do this. We would tell them, however, that if they did happen to find their car, they had to call the police before they approached it, as any officer spotting the car would assume that it was still stolen, and that the thieves were the ones in the car. When the owners would reply, "Well, I'll just show the officer my drivers license and registration!" the real bad news would come.

"Sir, you don't seem to understand. The officer that runs your license plate is only going to know that the car is reported stolen. Car thieves have been known to respond violently when approached by police. Therefore, the officer is probably going to come out of his car with his shotgun, and order you and anyone with you to prone out on the pavement. You will be handcuffed, searched, and placed in a prisoner cage to be taken to jail. He will probably not believe that you are the registered owner of the car, because lots of car thieves tell us that."

Of course, some of them would ignore this advice, and when they saw the red lights come on and heard, "DRIVER! PUT YOUR HANDS ON TOP OF YOUR HEAD!" would exit the car with their registration and license in hand, walking back to the officer. Usually, they got thrown to the ground or were taken down by a police dog. From time to time, they got shot.

The upshot is that there are all sorts of factors involved in a police-citizen encounter, and the citizen won't know about a lot of them. The officer is going to take steps to ensure that he or she goes home at the end of watch with all the body parts and functions they started with. Offer no resistance, and you are far less likely to be tased or subjected to other uses of force, and whatever answers you might provide to the officer will have more credibility. One can find all sorts of stories of police overreaction and misconduct - I won't pretend to tell you that they don't happen. But fewer than 1% of police officers ever commit a serious act of misconduct. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor that you will be dealing with a reasonable and rational officer who will be trying to do his or her job, and nothing more, and that you will be treated with as much respect and courtesy as the situation allows.

As a taxpayer, do you think that was a good purpose for that money? Did it make anything right?

It did somewhat, but I would suggest that the riots did a better job. Because clearly the trials in Simi Valley were completely fair.

Having talked to a few cops about the situation they freely admit that they happily will violate your rights and know that they will likely get away with it. It seems a shame that no one fairly watches the watchers. If the cop breaks your arm for no reason you're resisting. If you try to stop him from breaking your arm you're resisting.

And folks wonder so many people have no respect for the cops....

And there you have it. Go along with the program, and if you've been mistreated, misidentified, or otherwise had your rights violated, take it up with the appropriate law enforcement agency and/or court later.

So two points:

1. That may not be allowed, especially if they think you might be an "enemy combatant".

2. You made it clear that the chances of any meaningful recourse is slim.


The upshot is that there are all sorts of factors involved in a police-citizen encounter, and the citizen won't know about a lot of them. The officer is going to take steps to ensure that he or she goes home at the end of watch with all the body parts and functions they started with.

This inherent judgement in the value of the officer over the value of the citizen is why, when mistakes are made, they should be punished more harshly than they currently are.

One can find all sorts of stories of police overreaction and misconduct - I won't pretend to tell you that they don't happen. But fewer than 1% of police officers ever commit a serious act of misconduct.

First off I'd ask what orifice this number was extracted from. Secondly I'd ask what qualifies as "serious". Is what the LAX LEO did to "eastwest" serious? I'd say so but I doubt, even if eastwest wanted to persue it, that anything would happen.

The odds are overwhelmingly in favor that you will be dealing with a reasonable and rational officer who will be trying to do his or her job, and nothing more, and that you will be treated with as much respect and courtesy as the situation allows.

Unfortunately what this means is that in an attempt to make the officers safer you will be treated, by default, with much less dignity than you deserve and must realize that in any interaction with any LEO that you will end up being insulted and degraded.

I can only recommend that you do what the ACLU recommends: keep your mouth shut, say nothing, make note of EVERYTHING and if you can afford to then litigate. Welcome to the United Police State of America.

It did somewhat, but I would suggest that the riots did a better job. Because clearly the trials in Simi Valley were completely fair.The South Central riots had people from South Central looting and burning the property of other people that lived and/or worked in South Central. I'd really like to know how you reason that the event accomplished anything worthwhile. What I saw was a bunch of people acting lawlessly and solely for their own benefit, with no regard for the well-being of their fellow man.

Having talked to a few cops about the situation they freely admit that they happily will violate your rights and know that they will likely get away with it. It seems a shame that no one fairly watches the watchers. If the cop breaks your arm for no reason you're resisting. If you try to stop him from breaking your arm you're resisting.I've never had a cop try to break my arm, unless you count sessions of defensive tactics training. And in every instance I have ever witnesses where a citizen was in peril of having their arm broken by a cop, it was because of the citizen's actions. Had the citizen done as he or she was asked, there would have been no injury whatsoever.

You say that you have "talked to a few cops." There are not quite 800,000 people in the United States with badges and some form of arrest powers. I think I can make a case for knowing more of them than you. How many are in your sample that allow you to make such a blanket evaluation of the rest?

And folks wonder so many people have no respect for the cops....I find that there are quite a number of people that respect "the cops," in my estimate, a majority. The ones that don't are the people that have no respect for their fellow man, his property, or his well-being, resent authority of any type, or have just made up their mind that it's fashionable to hate the police, so that's what they will do.

I was an ROTC cadet in college, during an era where we didn't wear our uniforms on campus because it would likely provoke an incident. 35 years later, the uniforms are respected and even admired. People do what is fashionable, especially when they aren't sure what their own views are.

I used to defend excessive use of force cases and I'd rather have a cop use a taser than attempt to grapple with a suspect.

Reasons, in no particular order:

a) lower risk of injury to the officer
b) high compliance by the suspect after being tased (cf pepper spray)
c) lower risk of injury to the suspect (grappling runs the risk of dislocated shoulders/broken ribs/worse)

People who are on drugs, psychotic or just really upset often lash out in unpredictably violent ways. Cops should be, and are, provided tools to take such folks into custody without risking anyone's life.

So two points:

1. That may not be allowed, especially if they think you might be an "enemy combatant".I haven't seen any recent examples of U.S. law enforcement tactics that even reference that term. I can't speak to military tactics, if that is what you're referring to. I've never served on active duty or been in Iraq or Afghanistan.

2. You made it clear that the chances of any meaningful recourse is slim. I don't understand where you get that idea. I see numerous examples where officers found guilty of misconduct are terminated and often prosecuted. In the federal trial of the LAPD officers accused of beating Rodney King, two were sent to federal prison for two years for an act that would have been prosecuted as misdemeanor battery had it been committed by a private citizen in LA. Someone without a criminal record, as was the case with the police officers, would have gotten probation if convicted. The officers were held to a higher standard and punished much more harshly, and Rodney King got $3.8 million to pay attorneys and otherwise squander.

This inherent judgement in the value of the officer over the value of the citizen is why, when mistakes are made, they should be punished more harshly than they currently are. I'm not sure where you're going here. Are you saying that the officer is held to be of higher value than the citizen? The officer enters the job knowing that he will take risks that the citizen chooses not to take. He is allowed to use force to apprehend suspects, maintain order, and protect himself.

The officer is also selected and trained to make sound judgments under stress. Those decisions are debated endlessly by the best legal minds in the country. The officer frequently has to make a critical decision is a fraction of a second - everyone else has forever to second guess and Monday morning quarterback him.

And I maintain that law enforcement officers found guilty of misconduct are punished more harshly than would a private citizen. If you wreck a company car, it's likely that the worst that will happen is that you won't be allowed to drive company cars. The officer that does this is probably going to be suspended without pay and place future favorable assignments and promotions in jeopardy. And that's only one example.

First off I'd ask what orifice this number was extracted from. Secondly I'd ask what qualifies as "serious". Is what the LAX LEO did to "eastwest" serious? I'd say so but I doubt, even if eastwest wanted to persue it, that anything would happen.If you're referring to the incident I think you are, that occurred at a small regional airport, not LAX. And I responded in that thread to explain the problems in procedure and urged eastwest to report the problems and seek a resolution. As I've said before, I don't maintain that all cops are benevolent, wise and kind. I do maintain that less than 1% commit acts of serious misconduct, and by that, I mean acts where citizens are injured or imprisoned unlawfully. This would not include all cases where someone goes to trial and is found not guilty. "Not guilty" does not equate to "innocent." It only means that the state didn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer acted in good faith and had adequate probable cause in making the arrest, then he has done his job properly.

If you have any information that indicates that more than the 1% I mentioned are criminal, renegade cops, I'd like to see it.

Unfortunately what this means is that in an attempt to make the officers safer you will be treated, by default, with much less dignity than you deserve and must realize that in any interaction with any LEO that you will end up being insulted and degraded.The cops I know, almost without fail, begin every citizen contact with "Good morning/afternoon/evening, sir/ma'am." What happens after that is mostly a reaction to how the citizen conducts himself. I have never been treated disrespectfully by a police officer, and that counts the years before I was a cop, during, and since. And, by the way, I make it a point not to have anything on my car or showing on my person that says "cop," unless I'm at work.

I can only recommend that you do what the ACLU recommends: keep your mouth shut, say nothing, make note of EVERYTHING and if you can afford to then litigate. Welcome to the United Police State of America.
On the whole, I would say that's not bad advice, although I take issue with your description of America. Just keep in mind that there are some questions you are obligated to answer, and/or documents you are required to surrender, depending on the circumstances. It's fine to know your rights, but also know your obligations. As for me, when I see a cop, I wave and smile, and they usually return the gesture. I am truly sorry that you can't enjoy the same peaceful co-existence.

He doesn't have to. The OP is ALL KNOWING, ABLE TO PREDICT, NEVER WRONG.... :rolleyes:


I've noticed that, too.

:D :eek:

He doesn't have to. The OP is ALL KNOWING, ABLE TO PREDICT, NEVER WRONG.... :rolleyes:


btw, for what it's worth, you are the only one that has some facts back your argument up, the others? nothing, but they love to debate - NOTHINGS with NOTHINGS! I wouldn't worry too much. Many of them have lost credibility long time ago, and just because many of US don't post around here anymore, we do know the difference between a credible and a useless argument..... ^

:rolleyes:

I've noticed that, too.

:D :eek:

Don't like it when someone hasn't been proven incorrect here and that doesn't help the political agenda? ;) One doesn't need to be a medical expert themselves to have access to resources who are. ;)

Well, not to dismiss all the many interesting intricacies of tasering and so on, but to go back to the OP: the originial point remains a valid one. Visitors to this country should certainly think twice about spending their time and money here. Go to England or somewhere instead maybe: a place where the cops don't even carry guns.

I think there is a lot to be said for carrying a baton as your only weapon. Someone earlier mentioned that x% of cops get killed with their own weapon. Well, I would imagine that if cops weren't armed, then most criminals would have no reason to kill them (UK statistics back this point up). Just look at what the British police union think about guns...they don't want anything to do with them for this exact reason.

Tasering removes thinking from police work. If you only have a baton, you are going to use some common sense as to whether you need to beat someone or not: the police know that and criminals know it, and therefore there is rarely a reason for physical violence between police and non-police. Once you adopt a force+1 doctrine, then everything just escalates to the heightened state of violence that we see in so many aspects of this country (I wonder if this has anything to do with US foreign policy and cowboy diplomacy).

Finally, the increased amount of weaponry possesed in the hands of the state (i.e. the police in this discussion) should scare all of us, but should most of all scare foreign visitors: especially those with dark skin. Remember, there are only a few countries in the world that lock people in jail without access to judges, trial, phone calls etc. The US is one of those countries whether many here care to accept it or not. There are hundreds of people in Guantanamo. Are they guilty or inncoent? who knows? there are no public trials.

Why run the risk? why have to worry about this stuff? Go spend your money in Iceland or Japan or somewhere, where you are (1) at much less risk of violent crime and (2) not supporting an aggressive militarized society.

:rolleyes:



Don't like it when someone hasn't been proven incorrect here and that doesn't help the political agenda? ;) One doesn't need to be a medical expert themselves to have access to resources who are. ;)

Congrats for getting in the last word. Again.

What's your favorite smily? Oh, yes: ;)

Congrats for getting in the last word. Again.

What's your favorite smily? Oh, yes: ;)

Are congratulations in order for not sticking to the topic and trying to discuss a FTer and not the topic, again? Seems so.

I'd really like to know how you reason that the event accomplished anything worthwhile. What I saw was a bunch of people acting lawlessly and solely for their own benefit, with no regard for the well-being of their fellow man.

If you want to be that simplistic about it - that they simply all decided "hey, it's time to rip each other off" then fine. But perhaps further reflection it might become clear that there were other factors and that the behavior of the LAPD was one of them.

I find that there are quite a number of people that respect "the cops," in my estimate, a majority. The ones that don't are the people that have no respect for their fellow man, his property, or his well-being, resent authority of any type, or have just made up their mind that it's fashionable to hate the police, so that's what they will do.

Just a suggestion but if you're to chastise someone for making generalizations then perhaps you should avoid doing the same thing yourself.

I have respect for officers who perform their job well, which as you said is the majority. And none of the cops that I have respect for would ever espouse a "The copy is always right" philosophy. As I said earlier you should never resist a cop, and unfortunately if he violates your rights (as happens all too often) you really have no recourse, which is unfortunate.

I have never found an American police officer as friendly or helpful as officers from Tokyo, London, Montreal, for example.

OUTRAGED with Police Negligence(Just be forwarned along the lines of what happened to KarenH-not that I haven't dissuaded all of you from spending your time and $$$ in the USA before)

There is a new rule at Saginaw City Council meetings. Men are required to take their hats off. Evidently, they are pretty serious about this new rule.

The man was wearing a Los Angeles Dodgers hat. Officer Doug Stacer of the Saginaw Police Department asked him to remove the hat. The man raised his voice and did not remove the hat.

As the officer tried to grab the hat and then tried to grab the man, the man with the hat tried to kick Saginaw Police Chief Gerald Cliff, who was coming to help out.

At that point, Stacer hugged the man and started singing Kumbaya. The guy then grabbed the small pistol he was hiding under the hat and shot at the singingpoliceman, missed and hit a four year old girl.

http://spoofed

-----

The teen isn't at student at the school, but showed up yesterday saying he wanted to register for classes.

Because he has prior weapons offenses, the school liaison officer was asked to search him. Police say he was uncooperative, so he was handcuffed.

Police spokesman Howard Payne says Jacquelyn Lightfoot arrived at the school and began swearing, screaming and demanding that her son be released.

Payne says when Lightfoot and her two daughters surrounded the officer he commented that they could work this out. The outraged woman pulled a gun and shot the cheerleader dead.

http://spoofed

----

Man Tasered while standing, talking

David J. Maske, 22, of Sheboygan, said he was just trying to be helpful when he was Tasered in August after not responding to an officer's commands to step out of the road.

Maske said he approached the officer to explain the domestic disturbance the officer was there to investigate — which didn't directly involve Maske — and didn't obey the commands because he thought they were directed at his brother, who the police report said was trying to pull Maske out of the road. The report says Maske told the officer he wasn't moving.

"I didn't even take a step towards (the officer). … I wasn't even getting angry or anything, I was just talking normal," said Maske, who estimated he was eight feet from the officer when the Taser was drawn. "I put my arms straight out to the side of me and was like, 'What are you going to do, shoot an unarmed man?' The officer did not react quick enough and was shot with the small pistol that Maske hid in his palm.

http://spoofed

what could have been

OUTRAGED with Police Negligence

what could have been

Anyone could have a concealed weapon that they pull out at random and unprovoked and use to attack someone. That's just a "risk" of being out in public; fortunately random unprovoked bezerk shootings don't happen that often.

Your hypotheticals seem to suggest that the first action the police should take in any encounter with the public is to taser the individual at a distance and then handcuff them. Your "could have beens" can be applied to traffic stops, TSA checkpoints, a citizen going to a police station to ask a question, or even a LEO directing traffic.

I doubt too many people would see that policy as reasonable.

I haven't seen any recent examples of U.S. law enforcement tactics that even reference that term. I can't speak to military tactics, if that is what you're referring to.

I am referring to the suspension of habeas corpus for aliens - the problem there being that proving one's citizenship can be difficult, especially if one doesn't get a lawyer. And it's not just something they can do in Afghanistan...

In the federal trial of the LAPD officers accused of beating Rodney King, two were sent to federal prison for two years for an act that would have been prosecuted as misdemeanor battery had it been committed by a private citizen in LA.

Not quite, as a private citizen can violate someone else's civil rights and thus punished for civil rights violations, as those officers were.
.
The officer enters the job knowing that he will take risks that the citizen chooses not to take. He is allowed to use force to apprehend suspects, maintain order, and protect himself.

Yes, and I take issue with the policy of trying to minimize the risks at the expense of the citizen (or non-citizen as the case may be).

The officer frequently has to make a critical decision is a fraction of a second - everyone else has forever to second guess and Monday morning quarterback him.

Unfortunately that's the nature of the job and no one forces anyone to become an officer, although I respect those who do so with the intention of doing their job well.

The officer that does this is probably going to be suspended without pay and place future favorable assignments and promotions in jeopardy. And that's only one example.

I have no doubt of that. The problem I have is that the same doesn't seem to happen to the cop who arrests someone without probable cause, conducts an illegal search, or tasers someone unnecessarily.

"Not guilty" does not equate to "innocent." It only means that the state didn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer acted in good faith and had adequate probable cause in making the arrest, then he has done his job properly.

Well, I wouldn't say that the officer did his job improperly, and while yes a person may be found "not guilty", that *does* mean innocent since we have this whole "innocent until *proven* guilty" thing. But in my experience most officers usually see it the other way around...

If you have any information that indicates that more than the 1% I mentioned are criminal, renegade cops, I'd like to see it.

Since you provided the "statistic" I was hoping you might be able to back it up.

The cops I know, almost without fail, begin every citizen contact with "Good morning/afternoon/evening, sir/ma'am."

That hasn't been my experience. But perhaps you are "profiled" differently than I am.

On the whole, I would say that's not bad advice, although I take issue with your description of America. Just keep in mind that there are some questions you are obligated to answer, and/or documents you are required to surrender, depending on the circumstances. It's fine to know your rights, but also know your obligations.

The ACLU makes handy wallet cards just for those situations. And always remember that if the cop wants to do something illegal (pretty likely in a traffic stop) to not to stop the officer but also to make sure the officer is aware that you do not consent to their illegal search, for example.

As for me, when I see a cop, I wave and smile, and they usually return the gesture. I am truly sorry that you can't enjoy the same peaceful co-existence.

My guess is that it's not just your cheerful demeanor but your "profile" that also accounts for your experience. Keep in mind it's not the same for everyone and to blame it entirely on the citizen is naieve.

There have been several comments suggesting American police be unarmed or armed only with a baton. Living as we do in a country where private ownership of deadly weapons is legal and widely practiced by the citizens, it is not wise to think that those sworn to protect other citizens and enforce laws would not be armed with at least the same level of force as their civilian population. Along with this comes a great responsibility, and police agencies regularly conduct firearms training to their officers, both during initial training and during in-service training on a timed basis (quarterly, biannually, etc.)

With some exceptions, most citizens in the UK do not have firearms (except for a number of criminals). The police can reasonably expect to go to work without coming up against a firearm wielding person. US police do not share that luxury.

If an officer is incapacitated, the suspect now can do with the officer as they wish, including stealing their police car, radio, gear, and computer system. The criminal will now have access to people's private information and to police communications. They can also kill the officer if that officer is incapacitated. That is why police have a wide range of tools to protect themselves as well as the public: Batons, Mace, Guns, K9, and most importantly their Interpersonal Communication Skills.

Most police officers (the overwhelming majority) are good people who are dedicated to protecting and serving. You will get some who are immature and slipped through the hiring process, and you will also get some who are sarcastic and may have abrasive personalities (like a portion of FT posters). But all in all, police officers are human beings. They get offended when insulted, feel happy when they bust a criminal, feel fear when facing off against an armed felon, cry when they pull a dead child out of a car and otherwise express the same wide range of emotions that everyone else does.

I am also very polite when dealing with the police, and I've never been threatened, tased, drawn down upon or shot. I am also a white male, and sadly, in some cases, that may help me. However, I've never known a police officer to arrest or hassle anyone based solely on their race, religion, sex, color or national origin.

Who has suggested cops in the US shouldn't have guns?

Who has suggested cops in the US shouldn't have guns?

Post #61.

Well, not to dismiss all the many interesting intricacies of tasering and so on, but to go back to the OP: the originial point remains a valid one. Visitors to this country should certainly think twice about spending their time and money here. Go to England or somewhere instead maybe: a place where the cops don't even carry guns.

I think there is a lot to be said for carrying a baton as your only weapon. Someone earlier mentioned that x% of cops get killed with their own weapon. Well, I would imagine that if cops weren't armed, then most criminals would have no reason to kill them (UK statistics back this point up). Just look at what the British police union think about guns...they don't want anything to do with them for this exact reason.

Tasering removes thinking from police work. If you only have a baton, you are going to use some common sense as to whether you need to beat someone or not: the police know that and criminals know it, and therefore there is rarely a reason for physical violence between police and non-police. Once you adopt a force+1 doctrine, then everything just escalates to the heightened state of violence that we see in so many aspects of this country (I wonder if this has anything to do with US foreign policy and cowboy diplomacy).

Finally, the increased amount of weaponry possesed in the hands of the state (i.e. the police in this discussion) should scare all of us, but should most of all scare foreign visitors: especially those with dark skin. Remember, there are only a few countries in the world that lock people in jail without access to judges, trial, phone calls etc. The US is one of those countries whether many here care to accept it or not. There are hundreds of people in Guantanamo. Are they guilty or inncoent? who knows? there are no public trials.

Why run the risk? why have to worry about this stuff? Go spend your money in Iceland or Japan or somewhere, where you are (1) at much less risk of violent crime and (2) not supporting an aggressive militarized society.


according to your theory all African-Americans or Arab-Americans should not be visiting France in the near future :confused:

After all, their police is armed and there seems to be a racial problems going on, at least according to the local African/Arab-French CITIZENS......

as clearly stated by many here, there are some rouge cops, and it's just not US, it's EVERYWHERE in the world, but to make blanket irresponsible statements like what you did, is what I would call, asinine!

according to your theory all African-Americans or Arab-Americans should not be visiting France in the near future :confused:

... that's not according to any theory he presented.

After all, their police is armed and there seems to be a racial problems going on, at least according to the local African/Arab-French CITIZENS......

He's speaking of foreigners, and you're speaking mostly of citizens. Apples to carrots.

as clearly stated by many here, there are some rouge cops, and it's just not US, it's EVERYWHERE in the world, but to make blanket irresponsible statements like what you did, is what I would call, asinine!

The French government doesn't yet claim the right to detain foreigners indefinitely, that too without guarantee to a trial. The US government does claim the right to detain foreigners indefinitely without a trial. :eek:

... that's not according to any theory he presented.

which part of the underlined statement did you miss :confused:



He's speaking of foreigners, and you're speaking mostly of citizens. Apples to carrots.



and the French (rouge) cop will ask first if you are a citizen or a foreigner before he decides to shoot you :confused:

which part of the underlined statement did you miss :confused:

I missed none of it. But instead of playing disingenuine games through selective emphasis and relative de-emphasis in someone else's post, I took the whole of the post into consideration so as not to miss the point martian was trying to make.

and the French (rouge) cop will ask first if you are a citizen or a foreigner before he decides to shoot you :confused:

Forget the segmenting. Do French police shoot people in France more often than American police shoot people in America? Or do the French police shoot less people in France than American police shoot in America.

I missed none of it. But instead of playing disingenuine games through selective emphasis and relative de-emphasis in someone else's post, I took the whole of the post into consideration so as not to miss the point martian was trying to make.



Forget the segmenting. Do French police shoot people in France more often than American police shoot people in America? Or do the French police shoot less people in France than American police shoot in America.


whatever :confused:

you are just amazing.....

Your infantile need to have the last, usually useless word in, is bordering on the........(oh, never mind) :rolleyes:

By the way, I capitalize the letters in TASER because it is actually an acronym: Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle.

Good piece of trivia there. Let the TASERings continue.

whatever :confused:

you are just amazing.....

Your infantile need to have the last, usually useless word in, is bordering on the........(oh, never mind) :rolleyes:

Please stick to the topic and refrain from personal attacks on FTers. ;) The topic is not me. And I wouldn't necessarily want your handles suspended. :D

Taser has entered the popular lexicon in the same way xerox -- and increasingly even ziploc bag -- has to be a more generic reference.

whatever :confused:

you are just amazing.....

Your infantile need to have the last, usually useless word in, is bordering on the........(oh, never mind) :rolleyes:

I do not know what all the aggro is about here. The point made by GUWonder remains a very valid one.

Do French police shoot people in France more often than American police shoot people in America? Or do the French police shoot less people in France than American police shoot in America.

Yes, someone with dark skin in France is not always subject to the best of treatment, and that country faces a number of deep-rooted racial issues. However, it remains that in France you or I enjoy a level of freedom that does not exist in this county: most notably the freedom not to be arrested without trial as a foreigner.

Foreign visitors should be rightly worried about visiting this country. Some visitors might also be concerned about France. However, at least they have a legal system which allows for lawyers, trials, and other such things that a lot of the rest of the world take for granted.

I can only say that some of the policies being enacted by this government, will only come back to haunt America for a very long time. What is America if it is not the land of the free?

I used to defend excessive use of force cases and I'd rather have a cop use a taser than attempt to grapple with a suspect.

Reasons, in no particular order:

a) lower risk of injury to the officer
b) high compliance by the suspect after being tased (cf pepper spray)
c) lower risk of injury to the suspect (grappling runs the risk of dislocated shoulders/broken ribs/worse)

People who are on drugs, psychotic or just really upset often lash out in unpredictably violent ways. Cops should be, and are, provided tools to take such folks into custody without risking anyone's life.

Like the mom in Madison? (Well, you know what Bill O'Reilly says about Madison)

Say, has pepper spray ever killed a person??

(Well, you know what Bill O'Reilly says about Madison)



I avoid sexists and fascists whenever possible, so would you mind sharing? Sounds interesting.

Yes, someone with dark skin in France is not always subject to the best of treatment, and that country faces a number of deep-rooted racial issues. However, it remains that in France you or I enjoy a level of freedom that does not exist in this county: most notably the freedom not to be arrested without trial as a foreigner.

yet they can be shot.....



Foreign visitors should be rightly worried about visiting this country. Some visitors might also be concerned about France. However, at least they have a legal system which allows for lawyers, trials, and other such things that a lot of the rest of the world take for granted.

I can only say that some of the policies being enacted by this government, will only come back to haunt America for a very long time. What is America if it is not the land of the free?


Maybe I missed something, but show me at least couple of examples where a legal visitor, with a valid passport and a visa(if required), in US is being detained without having the ability to contact hers/his consulate, a lawyer and finally have a trial?

Maybe I missed something, but show me at least couple of examples where a legal visitor, with a valid passport and a visa(if required), in US is being detained without having the ability to contact hers/his consulate, a lawyer and finally have a trial?


I think you miss the point. There are lots of people in Guantanamo and other secret prisons who have not seen lawyers ever. Why are they there? Do you know? I don't. I do know that there are Europeans, Asians, and all other varieties of non-citizens imprisoned.

And I can't give you specific examples because of the very point I am making. There is no freedom to a fair trial in this country. If there were then we could have an informed debate about this topic.

As I have said before, every visitor should thus seriously reconsider coming to this country until personal freedoms are reinstated. Why risk it?

I think you miss the point. There are lots of people in Guantanamo and other secret prisons who have not seen lawyers ever. Why are they there? Do you know? I don't. I do know that there are Europeans, Asians, and all other varieties of non-citizens imprisoned.

And I can't give you specific examples because of the very point I am making. There is no freedom to a fair trial in this country. If there were then we could have an informed debate about this topic.

As I have said before, every visitor should thus seriously reconsider coming to this country until personal freedoms are reinstated. Why risk it?

If these prisons are secret, then how do you know about them?

I think you miss the point. There are lots of people in Guantanamo and other secret prisons who have not seen lawyers ever. Why are they there? Do you know? I don't. I do know that there are Europeans, Asians, and all other varieties of non-citizens imprisoned.

And I can't give you specific examples because of the very point I am making. There is no freedom to a fair trial in this country. If there were then we could have an informed debate about this topic.

As I have said before, every visitor should thus seriously reconsider coming to this country until personal freedoms are reinstated. Why risk it?

My point is simple -

Is there a risk for a visitor with a valid passport and visa(if required) to come visit? unless they committed a crime, then no.

Can that visitor be arrested? SURE, but that's true for any country in the world, but I don't know of any that were send to Cuba and being held against their will and with no representation, do you?

You are trying to tell us that US will just simply arrest a "legal" visitor, drag her/him away and never give them a chance to talk to their consular rep and/or a lawyer. I say it's bullocks!

Maybe I missed something, but show me at least couple of examples where a legal visitor, with a valid passport and a visa(if required), in US is being detained without having the ability to contact hers/his consulate, a lawyer and finally have a trial?

Did you intentionally word your question so that others would unintentionally set up a strawman that you could try to knockover more easily?

Here's a response that is not a strawman you can knock down:

1. The US government does invalidate entry documents or deny visas/entry permission on arrival for a number of foreigners as part of the practice of our getting them held "indefinitely", by some party or another, in some place or another, as detainees.
2. Foreigners detained in the US have been later sent "overseas" for further detention -- including often enough for further detention in our own direct custody -- often without having the ability to contact their consulate or even a lawyer until well after the pain and damage was inflicted; and sometimes the contact with their own consular or independent legal officials didn't happen until well after the final release. (This includes some who have ended up released to go "home", only to be "rendered" at a transit airport.)

And that's just the start. Trials for foreigners suspected of some types of serious criminal activity and who are in our direct or indirect custody is no longer a given. Speedy trials, that's even less of a given.

Almost sounds like this is some kind of Soviet spy thriller novel or some recall of Soviet era happenings. Unfortunately, this is modern day America in action for a sizeable number of foreigners of the type mentioned by martian.

If you were interested, you could do your own research in this area. For others to spoon-feed info to skeptics, it'll likely be a waste in the same manner as taking a horse to water won't necessarily make him drink. Trying to force the horse to drink might even annoy the horse and make him kick or bite. :eek:

If these prisons are secret, then how do you know about them?

Not everything about them is secret; and certainly not secret to all. And some people with moral values and a respect for the rule of law that work in this area or associated areas are informing others in the hopes of change. ;)

Can that visitor be arrested? SURE, but that's true for any country in the world, but I don't know of any that were send to Cuba and being held against their will and with no representation, do you?




I think you are missing my point.

Guantanamo is full of people. We can agree on this I assume.
The US operates a number of other 'secret prisons.' I also assume we can agree on this, yes?

The issue is not that foreigners can be arrested. You are right, that can certainly happen anywhere. However, in most countries (even many of those deemed to be lacking in "freedom" by the U.S. administration) you have the right to a lawyer and a trial.

If we agree on the two facts I stated earlier, then how are we disagreeing that foreigners are being held without lawyers and trials? What crime did the people in those jails commit? None of us have any idea, other then beleiving Bush and co. when they say "trust us. they are bad guys." And you just have to look at Iraq to see what happened the last time we listened to them say that.

Are you really disagreeing that foreigners are being held without trial? or is your argument based on that fact that you (like me) do not know what those people did, and therefore they must have done something wrong to justify their imprisonment? The latter argument, just does not make sense to me. Please explain....

I haven't seen any recent examples of U.S. law enforcement tactics that even reference that term (enemy combatant). I can't speak to military tactics, if that is what you're referring to.I am referring to the suspension of habeas corpus for aliens - the problem there being that proving one's citizenship can be difficult, especially if one doesn't get a lawyer. And it's not just something they can do in Afghanistan...I'm not aware of any suspension of habeas corpus for aliens, unless you're talking about people incarcerated at Guantanamo. That's a military operation, and far outside my area of expertise. Aliens get hearings before immigration judges, assuming that we're talking about immigration violations. And this is getting pretty far afield of a discussion of TASERs and uses of force.

In the federal trial of the LAPD officers accused of beating Rodney King, two were sent to federal prison for two years for an act that would have been prosecuted as misdemeanor battery had it been committed by a private citizen in LA.Not quite, as a private citizen can violate someone else's civil rights and thus punished for civil rights violations, as those officers were.The last time I can remember anything like that happening, it involved Freedom Riders and the KKK. Not exactly a common occurrence, and certainly not at the level of misdemeanor battery.

The officer enters the job knowing that he will take risks that the citizen chooses not to take. He is allowed to use force to apprehend suspects, maintain order, and protect himself.Yes, and I take issue with the policy of trying to minimize the risks at the expense of the citizen (or non-citizen as the case may be).I can't think of any other way to minimize the risks, and I feel your terminology ("at the expense of the citizen") is a bit strong. The only "expense" for someone who is not actively resisting is to follow the directions of the officer. As I pointed out previously, Rodney King's two passengers did that, and most people didn't even know about them. People who choose to make a public display of their disdain for authority at the time of their contact with a law enforcement officer operate at their own peril, because the officer has to keep in mind that every citizen contact he makes may be an ambush, or a person wanted on a criminal warrant, or someone who has just completed a violent crime, or an emotionally disturbed and irrational person, or someone under the disorienting influence of a legal or illegal drug. In fact, police officers encounter these situations far more often than do private citizens. I infer from your comment that you believe that police officers are obligated to take risks so as not to chance offending your sensibilities or inconveniencing you in any way. I can't offer much in response, other than something like "things are tough all over" or "suck it up." I maintain, and other posters here have indicated, if you do as you are asked, your risk is minimal. And you always have the option of reporting any perceived misconduct to the officer's employer or resorting to the courts for redress.

In one post, you comment on the satisfaction of cashing in a lien on an officer's home, and then in another, claim that the chances for a remedy are slim. Can you tell me that you have exercised your right to report officer misconduct and had your complaint ignored?

The officer frequently has to make a critical decision is a fraction of a second - everyone else has forever to second guess and Monday morning quarterback him.Unfortunately that's the nature of the job and no one forces anyone to become an officer, although I respect those who do so with the intention of doing their job well. But your definition of "doing the job well" is apparently consistent with never doing anything to offend you, and that seems to be a tall order. And your comments indicate that you are exactly the person who is doing the second-guessing, without a full understanding of the facts.

I am reminded of a lawsuit that was filed against a corrections officer by a prison inmate. The inmate complained that the officer struck him several times on the head with a heavy aluminum flashlight. This claim was, in fact, true. What the inmate failed to note in his complaint was that the officer was responding to the inmate's having stabbed him in the shoulder with an improvised icepick, and that the inmate was, at that moment, attempting to extract the icepick for another go. You need to make sure you have the complete story.

And, by the way, if anyone stabs or tries to stab me with an icepick or any other deadly weapon, I will use a flashlight, a gun, a tree, or anything else I can get my hands on to defend myself. I think most law enforcement officers would express a similar sentiment.

The officer that does this is probably going to be suspended without pay and place future favorable assignments and promotions in jeopardy. And that's only one example.I have no doubt of that. The problem I have is that the same doesn't seem to happen to the cop who arrests someone without probable cause, conducts an illegal search, or tasers someone unnecessarily. I don't know why that would be the case. I have seen cops suspended for missing a court date, denting the fender of a patrol car, or calling in sick when they weren't really sick. If the cop was doing something that he knew he shouldn't do, or is careless or negligent, he can and often is disciplined for it. But there is a big difference between misconduct and a mistake, or a decision that is later found faulty by a court. The officers that got Ernesto Miranda to confess to rape in 1963 were operating under the law and investigating procedures in force at that time. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found the confession to have been obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. There was no way they could have know this was going to happen, and were operating in good faith. Even though their actions had repercussions throughout the criminal justice community, there was no misconduct.

By the way, Ernesto was re-tried with evidence that didn't include the confession, and was convicted again. Nine years later, he was stabbed to death in a bar in Tuscon.

"Not guilty" does not equate to "innocent." It only means that the state didn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the officer acted in good faith and had adequate probable cause in making the arrest, then he has done his job properly.Well, I wouldn't say that the officer did his job improperly, and while yes a person may be found "not guilty", that *does* mean innocent since we have this whole "innocent until *proven* guilty" thing. But in my experience most officers usually see it the other way around...Officers usually know factually whether a suspect has acted criminally or not. Being able to prove that under the rules of evidence is something else entirely. When you have that knowledge, but regularly see people escape the consequences of their acts, it's easy to see how one might become cynical.

And that "innocent until proven guilty thing" is a presumption of innocence that serves only to require that the state start from zero and prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt in order to sustain a conviction. A person is only truly innocent if they did not do what they were accused of. If I am to believe the findings of the triers of fact in the O.J. Simpson criminal and civil cases, the criminal jury found that O.J. was not guilty, but the civil jury found that he had committed the murders. So, while he may have been not guilty, he was not innocent.

If you have any information that indicates that more than the 1% I mentioned are criminal, renegade cops, I'd like to see it.Since you provided the "statistic" I was hoping you might be able to back it up. I don't know of any national statistics, but I can offer you what I believe to be a reasonable extrapolation. Take any city that has more than a hundred or so police officers and a local newspaper that is known to be openly critical of the police department. The LA Times and the Boston Herald are two examples that come to mind. These newspapers delight in reporting any police misconduct, real or imagined, and follow the stories until their conclusion - especially if the officer is disciplined or prosecuted. In the case of LAPD, there are about 8000 officers (I don't know the precise number, but that's ballpark). By my standard, that would mean that more than 80 officers over say, a year would have to be found guilty of serious misconduct to prove me wrong. Review the LA Times and see if you can find anywhere close to that many cases. Repeat as necessary for other law enforcement agencies served by the same newspaper, but be sure to add the number of officers employed by those agencies to the sample size, and adjust the 1% sample accordingly. Alternatively, ask the agencies about their internal affairs stats. How many officers are terminated and/or prosecuted for misconduct in the time frame you choose? I suspect that you will have a difficult time getting anywhere close to 1%. That even goes for places known for a misconduct-tolerant organizational culture like New Orleans PD, which has the distinction of being the only law enforcement agency in America to have three of their former officers on death row.

The cops I know, almost without fail, begin every citizen contact with "Good morning/afternoon/evening, sir/ma'am."That hasn't been my experience. But perhaps you are "profiled" differently than I am.I'm a middle-aged white male, so that might be the case. But I would also proffer that I have witnessed a lot more police-citizen contacts than you have, and with people of all "profiles."

On the whole, I would say that's not bad advice, although I take issue with your description of America. Just keep in mind that there are some questions you are obligated to answer, and/or documents you are required to surrender, depending on the circumstances. It's fine to know your rights, but also know your obligations.The ACLU makes handy wallet cards just for those situations. And always remember that if the cop wants to do something illegal (pretty likely in a traffic stop) to not to stop the officer but also to make sure the officer is aware that you do not consent to their illegal search, for example.No argument from me, although I would consider omitting the word "illegal" from your objection. Few people have the knowledge of the highly complex matrix of search and seizure case law to be able to say definitively what is an illegal search, and what is not. I have made several thousand searches, and a significant number of them were characterized as "illegal" by the searchee(s). I can only recall one that was found to be lacking in probable cause, and even in that case, the court noted for the record that it appeared I had acted in good faith.

As for me, when I see a cop, I wave and smile, and they usually return the gesture. I am truly sorry that you can't enjoy the same peaceful co-existence.My guess is that it's not just your cheerful demeanor but your "profile" that also accounts for your experience. Keep in mind it's not the same for everyone and to blame it entirely on the citizen is naieve.And I would suggest that, if your experience has been different, it might have a lot more to do with your demeanor and attitude than your "profile." I would probably be less likely to smile and wave back to a citizen that was looking at me like I was something the cat had done and neglected to cover up.

martian,

You can take some horses to water, but you can't necessarily make them drink; especially those who have already drunk the kool-aid. :eek:

I'm not aware of any suspension of habeas corpus for aliens, unless you're talking about people incarcerated at Guantanamo.


please see http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/14/1517230

The Bush administration argued on Monday that the government can indefinitely jail immigrants in the United States and prevent them from ever challenging their detention in civilian courts. The Justice Department is claiming that the recently signed Military Commissions Act applies not only to detainees in Guantanamo Bay but also to any foreigner detained in the United States on suspicion of terrorism. The attorney Jonathan Hafetz said this means any noncitizen can be whisked off at night and be put in detention. The Justice Department also claimed on Monday that hundreds of lawsuits by prisoners at Guantanamo should be thrown out because they no longer have the right to challenge their detentions in civilian courts.

martian,

You can take some horses to water, but you can't necessarily make them drink; especially those who have already drunk the kool-aid. :eek:


I had always hoped that rational discussion would help :)

I think you are missing my point.

Guantanamo is full of people. We can agree on this I assume.
The US operates a number of other 'secret prisons.' I also assume we can agree on this, yes?

The issue is not that foreigners can be arrested. You are right, that can certainly happen anywhere. However, in most countries (even many of those deemed to be lacking in "freedom" by the U.S. administration) you have the right to a lawyer and a trial.

If we agree on the two facts I stated earlier, then how are we disagreeing that foreigners are being held without lawyers and trials? What crime did the people in those jails commit? None of us have any idea, other then beleiving Bush and co. when they say "trust us. they are bad guys." And you just have to look at Iraq to see what happened the last time we listened to them say that.

Are you really disagreeing that foreigners are being held without trial? or is your argument based on that fact that you (like me) do not know what those people did, and therefore they must have done something wrong to justify their imprisonment? The latter argument, just does not make sense to me. Please explain....

we certainly agree on the "foreign fighters" or whatever they are called, being held in Cuba without representation and trials, and I'm still somewhat undecided on that issue. After all, Geneva Convention does allow total mistreatment to any fighter of any nation or entity that sends it's troops without uniform to fight a war. We could debate whether Al Qaeda is an entity, but they did declare war on US, that we don't have an argument about, at least I don't think so. So if one of their fighters is caught without a uniform, then perhaps they are asking for the mistreatment. At least we don't shoot them like all of us did to any soldier caught behind the enemy lines without a uniform during any conventional war.

Geneva Convention calls for certain rules during an arm conflict and only if somebody follows these rules, the convention has specific requirements as to how to treat the prisoners of war. When somebody declares a war on you but yet does not follow these rules, well......

Now that being said, I again ask you to give me an example of a legal, passport holding visitor that was hauled of to some "secret" prison without being able to contact a rep from their own country? If you can't, then I respectfully ask that you admit to being wrong.... Any legal visitor has nothing to fear, AFAIK. YMMV ;)

After all, Geneva Convention does allow total mistreatment to any fighter of any nation or entity that sends it's troops without uniform to fight a war.

Wow, Saddam Hussein would be proud of this line of thinking. :eek:

So if one of their fighters is caught without a uniform, then perhaps they are asking for the mistreatment.

Wow, Saddam Hussein would be proud of this line of thinking. :eek:

Geneva Convention calls for certain rules during an arm conflict and only if somebody follows these rules, the convention has specific requirements as to how to treat the prisoners of war. When somebody declares a war on you but yet does not follow these rules, well......

Wow, Saddam Hussein would be proud of this line of thinking. :eek:

Any legal visitor has nothing to fear, AFAIK. YMMV ;)

See below. ;)


I'm not aware of any suspension of habeas corpus for aliens, unless you're talking about people incarcerated at Guantanamo. That's a military operation, and far outside my area of expertise.

The Military Commissions Act suspends habeas corpus even for foreigners detained inside the US according to the Justice Department's own OLC.

The Administration states that the Act allows the federal government to detain any foreign national indefinitely, without right to civilian courts even if arrested and imprisoned inside the United States. The only condition is that the Administration must declare the person an enemy combatant. The catch-22 is that the Administration retains the sole, unchallengeable right to decide who is and is not an enemy combatant and for how long. Therefore, a foreigner detained in the US and arbitrarily declared an enemy combatant (and this label has been applied to people not even involved in violent activities) would have no right to habeas corpus and can be held indefinitely without trial. In practice, this is already what has been happening; now we are just getting a "legalization" of these unAmerican, Soviet-like practices.

Even this week, the Administration is now saying that a legal challenge by a certain former Bradley University graduate student detained in the US has no standing in regular civilian courts under the Military Commissions Act as the Administration has already declared him an enemy combatant. Until the Courts stick it to the Administration (and those twits in Congress who supported the Act), detained foreigners (including permanent residents and those with valid visas prior to its expedited revocation by the Administration) have no guaranteed right to habeas corpus; foreigners have habeas corpus on the condition that the Administration hasn't declared them (or confused them for) an enemy combatant.

we certainly agree on the "foreign fighters" or whatever they are called, being held in Cuba without representation and trials, and I'm still somewhat undecided on that issue.


I think the above statement is the crux of our disagreement.

I would only maintain that foreign citizens are being held in US secret prisons. How do we know they are fighters? Where did they come from?

Bush tells us they are all bad guys picked up while fighting in middleeasternish countries. But that is all we have to go on. There is no way for us to verify this, because they are locked away in secret without the right to a trial. Bush has been known to tell a few untuths about that part of the world (he has even admitted to doing so) so why should we unquestionably believe him on this?

As the US government has now suspended habeas corpus, every foreigner within these borders (or for that matter within arms length of US troops elsewhere in the world) should be justifiably scared.

Do you honestly think they don't make mistakes? There are undoubtedly a number of innocent people wrapped up in all of this. I very much doubt that Guantanamo is only full of bearded men who got caught in the act of raising a rocket launcher.

Unless there is transparency, we CANNOT call those people in the prison camps "forign fighters." They are simply foreign nationals. And if you use the legal standard that applies to most other countries in the world (innocent before proven guilty), they then are innocent foreign nationals.

I do not see how you can disagree with this. I am not even talking about what is right and wrong, or what I believe or don't believe. I am merely stating that the US: (1) runs prison camps, (2) has suspended habeas corpus, and (3) has imprisoned thousands of foreigners. These are all facts. These facts alone, make this country inherently lacking in a fundemental freedom enjoyed by most of the rest of the world, and frankly quite a scary totalitarian place to be.

I think the above statement is the crux of our disagreement.

I would only maintain that foreign citizens are being held in US secret prisons. How do we know they are fighters? Where did they come from?

Bush tells us they are all bad guys picked up while fighting in middleeasternish countries. But that is all we have to go on. There is no way for us to verify this, because they are locked away in secret without the right to a trial. Bush has been known to tell a few untuths about that part of the world (he has even admitted to doing so) so why should we unquestionably believe him on this?

As the US government has now suspended habeas corpus, every foreigner within these borders (or for that matter within arms length of US troops elsewhere in the world) should be justifiably scared.

Do you honestly think they don't make mistakes? There are undoubtedly a number of innocent people wrapped up in all of this. I very much doubt that Guantanamo is only full of bearded men who got caught in the act of raising a rocket launcher.

Unless there is transparency, we CANNOT call those people in the prison camps "forign fighters." They are simply foreign nationals. And if you use the legal standard that applies to most other countries in the world (innocent before proven guilty), they then are innocent foreign nationals.

I do not see how you can disagree with this. I am not even talking about what is right and wrong, or what I believe or don't believe. I am merely stating that the US: (1) runs prison camps, (2) has suspended habeas corpus, and (3) has imprisoned thousands of foreigners. These are all facts. These facts alone, make this country inherently lacking in a fundemental freedom enjoyed by most of the rest of the world, and frankly quite a scary totalitarian place to be.



Here is a perfect example of a legal visitor, holding a valid passport not being carted off to some secret prison, but deported back to the origin country. (I will admit, I laughed at the sequence of events and it was stupid when it happened, but that's not the point here).....

Former rock star Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam, flying to US in 2004 was detained by the FBI in Bangor, Maine, after the flight was diverted there and next day he was deported back to UK.

Why not wisk him away to the "secret prisons" if as asserted by the CAPPS No-Fly List, he was suspected of having ties to terrorists organizations? Because he was a legal tourist, holding a UK passport.

The US government decided that they will not allow him in to US (stupidity in this case), but it's within their rights as any country can refuse entry without explanation, and they didn't send in some special ops to whisk this "terrorist" suspect away.

Still waiting for example where a tourist was allowed in and then dragged away to secret prisons.......without having access to their consular/lawyer services. After all, that's what our debate is all about. You asserted that tourists should fear US and not come here.

Here is a perfect example of a legal visitor, holding a valid passport not being carted off to some secret prison, but deported back to the origin country. (I will admit, I laughed at the sequence of events and it was stupid when it happened, but that's not the point here).....

Former rock star Cat Stevens, now known as Yusuf Islam, flying to US in 2004 was detained by the FBI in Bangor, Maine, after the flight was diverted there and next day he was deported back to UK.

Why not wisk him away to the "secret prisons" if as asserted by the CAPPS No-Fly List, he was suspected of having ties to terrorists organizations? Because he was a legal tourist, holding a UK passport.

The US government decided that they will not allow him in to US (stupidity in this case), but it's within their rights as any country can refuse entry without explanation, and they didn't send in some special ops to whisk this "terrorist" suspect away.

Still waiting for example where a tourist was allowed in and then dragged away to secret prisons.......without having access to their consular/lawyer services. After all, that's what our debate is all about. You asserted that tourists should fear US and not come here.


Two things:

1) Your argument only proves that Cat Steves was sent back to the UK. It does not prove that all non-citizens are treated in exactly the same manner. Surely you are not claiming that are you?

2) I have explained this clearly in my previous posts and I do not know why you are ignoring my argument. The impetus is not on me to prove that people were dragged away. We know the prisons exist, we know there are foreigners in the prisons, we know the freedom of habeas corpus has been taken away, we don't know why the foreigners are in the prisons other than a discredited president telling us they are 'bad guys.' Do you disagree with any of this? If you do, there are countless facts to prove what I am saying here.

So, foreigners are being imprisoned without access to trial and lawyers, and we cannot prove (or do not know) what they did to deserve this imprisonment.

Why exactly, would you or anybody else defend this horrible state of affairs? If people are guilt then prove it. If not, then why on earth are they in jail and being tortured? No rational person should visit this country under these circumstances.

So, like I said: I do not need to prove that people have been whisked off because that is impossible. That very impossibility is exactly what I am pointing to. People are being jailed and tortured and we have no idea why.

Like the mom in Madison? (Well, you know what Bill O'Reilly says about Madison)

Say, has pepper spray ever killed a person??
I've been tasered and pepper-sprayed (both are sorta long stories, neither involve officers or handcuffs) and let me tell you that I seriously would perfer 5 seconds of the stun gun than the misery and the burning of pepper spray.

50k volts won't do too much to you unless you already have a heart condition or something. There's a saying.. it's not the volts that kill you, it's the amps. And it only takes .8 amps to kill a human.

The Bush administration argued on Monday that the government can indefinitely jail immigrants in the United States and prevent them from ever challenging their detention in civilian courts. The Justice Department is claiming that the recently signed Military Commissions Act applies not only to detainees in Guantanamo Bay but also to any foreigner detained in the United States on suspicion of terrorism. The attorney Jonathan Hafetz said this means any noncitizen can be whisked off at night and be put in detention. The Justice Department also claimed on Monday that hundreds of lawsuits by prisoners at Guantanamo should be thrown out because they no longer have the right to challenge their detentions in civilian courts.I think I'd like to see the original statements before I accept this representation of the arguments. I suspect this one has been highly spun by the anti-Bush folks (and I am generally one of them).

And this doesn't have much to do with the original topic of TASERs and uses of force by police. I can speak in a semi-informed fashion about that subject. On the various policies concerning holding of accused terrorists, immigration law, and the Military Commissions Act, I'm close to clueless.

Still waiting for example where a tourist was allowed in and then dragged away to secret prisons.......without having access to their consular/lawyer services. After all, that's what our debate is all about. You asserted that tourists should fear US and not come here.

Arar had that happen. Ended up in Syria courtesy of a US special arrangement at the time. ;)

And this doesn't have much to do with the original topic of TASERs and uses of force by police. I can speak in a semi-informed fashion about that subject. On the various policies concerning holding of accused terrorists, immigration law, and the Military Commissions Act, I'm close to clueless.


Yes, but it all boils down to the title of this thread. The US is just not a smart vacation choice for foreigners.

I think I'd like to see the original statements before I accept this representation of the arguments. I suspect this one has been highly spun by the anti-Bush folks (and I am generally one of them).

Besides the OSG, the Administration's Department of Justice-Office of Legal Counsel have the paper trail showing that the represenation is not a misrepresentation. John Yoo and Viet Dinh are still in the loop as well. :eek:

I avoid sexists and fascists whenever possible, so would you mind sharing? Sounds interesting.

He thinks that one should expect the people of Madison to be Satanists.

But back to the use of tasering for little or no cause:

According to a campus police report, the incident began when community service officers, who serve as guards at the library, began their nightly routine of checking to make sure everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is authorized to do so. Campus officials said the long-standing policy was adopted to ensure students' safety.

When Tabatabainejad refused to provide his ID, the officer told him he would have to show it or leave the library.

After repeated requests, the officer left and returned with campus police, who asked Tabatabainejad to leave the premises "multiple times," according to a statement by UCLA Police Department.

"He continued to refuse," the statement said. "As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building."

Witnesses disputed that account, saying that by this time Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack. When an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, the witnesses said, Tabatabainejad told the officer to let go, yelling, "Get off me" several times.

"Tabatabainejad encouraged library patrons to join his resistance," police said. "The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser."

At that point, officers stunned Tabatabainejad, causing him to fall to the floor.

The video shows Tabatabainejad yelling, "Here's your Patriot Act, here's your ... use of power," the Daily Bruin reported, adding he used a profanity.

"It was beyond grotesque," said UCLA graduate David Remesnitsky, of Los Angeles, who witnessed the incident. "By the end they took him over the stairs, lifted him up and Tasered him on his rear end. It seemed like it was inappropriately placed. The Tasering was so unnecessary and they just kept doing it."



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cellcamera16nov16,0,4794591.story?coll=la-home-headlines

He thinks that one should expect the people of Madison to be Satanists.

But back to the use of tasering for little or no cause:

According to a campus police report, the incident began when community service officers, who serve as guards at the library, began their nightly routine of checking to make sure everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is authorized to do so. Campus officials said the long-standing policy was adopted to ensure students' safety.

When Tabatabainejad refused to provide his ID, the officer told him he would have to show it or leave the library.

After repeated requests, the officer left and returned with campus police, who asked Tabatabainejad to leave the premises "multiple times," according to a statement by UCLA Police Department.

"He continued to refuse," the statement said. "As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building."

Witnesses disputed that account, saying that by this time Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack. When an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, the witnesses said, Tabatabainejad told the officer to let go, yelling, "Get off me" several times.

"Tabatabainejad encouraged library patrons to join his resistance," police said. "The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser."

At that point, officers stunned Tabatabainejad, causing him to fall to the floor.

The video shows Tabatabainejad yelling, "Here's your Patriot Act, here's your ... use of power," the Daily Bruin reported, adding he used a profanity.

"It was beyond grotesque," said UCLA graduate David Remesnitsky, of Los Angeles, who witnessed the incident. "By the end they took him over the stairs, lifted him up and Tasered him on his rear end. It seemed like it was inappropriately placed. The Tasering was so unnecessary and they just kept doing it."



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cellcamera16nov16,0,4794591.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Little cause?

Directly obeying several officer's warnings, plus them GRABBING HIM isn't enough notice?

I wasn't there (and i know you were not there either..) so I can only go by what i'm reading here and if he was indeed trying to instigate others to 'rise up' against the cops, i'm all for tasering him.

Plus, it's a damn library, not a stadium. Kid needs to grow up a bit....

As the US government has now suspended habeas corpus, every foreigner within these borders (or for that matter within arms length of US troops elsewhere in the world) should be justifiably scared..

The U.S. Govt can go F itself, as can the comically named "Justice Department". I am not scared of them.

The U.S. Govt can go F itself, as can the comically named "Justice Department". I am not scared of them.

And that, indeed, says a lot. You are a non-citizen who is resident in the US and, as we discussed earlier, easily identifiable -- but you are not afraid to publish remarks like that.

I wonder if you would be unafraid to sit in Damascus and post them about the Syrian government; or do the same in Teheran about the Iranian government or, for that matter, do it in any city in Pakistan -- where you do have citizenship.

I will fully admit that I would not be brave enough to make such posts in any of the countries I mentioned (or many more). Perhaps the big, bad, USA is not anywhere as bad as it is being portrayed.

Two things:

1) Your argument only proves that Cat Steves was sent back to the UK. It does not prove that all non-citizens are treated in exactly the same manner. Surely you are not claiming that are you?

as a matter of fact I'm until somebody shows me some different evidence...

2) I have explained this clearly in my previous posts and I do not know why you are ignoring my argument. The impetus is not on me to prove that people were dragged away. We know the prisons exist, we know there are foreigners in the prisons, we know the freedom of habeas corpus has been taken away, we don't know why the foreigners are in the prisons other than a discredited president telling us they are 'bad guys.' Do you disagree with any of this? If you do, there are countless facts to prove what I am saying here.

So, foreigners are being imprisoned without access to trial and lawyers, and we cannot prove (or do not know) what they did to deserve this imprisonment.

Why exactly, would you or anybody else defend this horrible state of affairs? If people are guilt then prove it. If not, then why on earth are they in jail and being tortured? No rational person should visit this country under these circumstances.

So, like I said: I do not need to prove that people have been whisked off because that is impossible. That very impossibility is exactly what I am pointing to. People are being jailed and tortured and we have no idea why.

and I have explained to you why they are being held without trials. They were grabbed in foreign lands, being part of an organization that openly declared war on the US, and are fighting the war without following any "rules". None of the international treaties protect these people. When and if they decide to put on a uniform and stand and fight according to the internationaly adopted armed conflict rules*, I will be the first one to fight for their rights if they are captured, until then, I don't lose any sleep over them. YMMV.

*I will admit that the whole idea of having armed conflict rules is somewhat ridiculous to me as I'm not and never was an army person, but the rules are set and if I was an army person, I would like to know that the rules apply, although we all know that during a war rules get broken all the time.

Please, for the last time, find some evidence where a legal tourist in the US was dragged away and not given access to their consular reps and or lawyers.

I'm sure the Embassies/Consulates would be screaming bloody hell if one of their US visiting citizens disappeared, never to be heard from again. I have not heard of any government doing it at this time.

Boy, reading this thread to the end would lead me to believe that foreign passport holders are going to be TASERed as they are walking off the jetbridge, sprayed with OC spray while handing their passport over at Immigrations, and then clubbed, hooded and sent to Gitmo before they even clear Customs.

I don't mean to make light of an ugly situation, but the overwhelming majority of foreign passport holders coming into the USA daily experience nothing other than 'Welcome to the United States'. I'm a little curious how rendition and Guantanamo ended up in a thread about police use of the TASER, but there we have it.

After reading some of the absolute hatred being spewed on this thread, I'll offer an apology on behalf of the US for real and supposed transgressions. Please, keep up the good fight but let the bitter hatred go. It's only going to fester and cause ulcers. Let's see what the new Congress (or new President is '08) can do before we pass judgements.

Little cause?

Directly obeying several officer's warnings, plus them GRABBING HIM isn't enough notice?

I wasn't there (and i know you were not there either..) so I can only go by what i'm reading here and if he was indeed trying to instigate others to 'rise up' against the cops, i'm all for tasering him.

Plus, it's a damn library, not a stadium. Kid needs to grow up a bit....


Well, you can see what happened here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGlvEcPmug

What a dangerous criminal he was :rolleyes:

I hope we are all ashamed. I hope we are all very ashamed. What has this country become?

And that, indeed, says a lot. You are a non-citizen who is resident in the US and, as we discussed earlier, easily identifiable -- but you are not afraid to publish remarks like that.

I wonder if you would be unafraid to sit in Damascus and post them about the Syrian government; or do the same in Teheran about the Iranian government or, for that matter, do it in any city in Pakistan -- where you do have citizenship.

I will fully admit that I would not be brave enough to make such posts in any of the countries I mentioned (or many more). Perhaps the big, bad, USA is not anywhere as bad as it is being portrayed.


Yes, just because people sometimes have freedom of expression here is not the point being made. That fact that people are hauled off to secret prisons, and increasingly attacked with physical force is what was being talked about. Yes, then you can draw comparisons to violent totalitarian places such as Pakistan or Israel. But are those countries we should really be associating the US with. Up until the last few years, I had always considered the US to be on a different standing and to occupy a higher moral ground.

Is this increased use of force combined with lack of habeas corpus really not aproblem for some people? How can you not care that the US is beoming less free and more totalitarian?

Well, you can see what happened here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGlvEcPmug

What a dangerous criminal he was :rolleyes:

I hope we are all ashamed. I hope we are all very ashamed. What has this country become?

if we're just looking for one example, then perhaps we're not the only western country to have an occasional abuse of police powers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biVUbruEaIM

if we're just looking for one example, then perhaps we're not the only western country to have an occasional abuse of police powers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biVUbruEaIM

Yes, but the difference being that in France they enjoy the freedom of habeas corpus. While, in the U.S. people can be detained for the rest of their lives. People here do not enjoy that freedom.

I could probably show you videos of Saudi, Chinese or Israeli abuses of state power. However, do we really want to be comparing the US with such regimes?

Yes, but the difference being that in France they enjoy the freedom of habeas corpus. While, in the U.S. people can be detained for the rest of their lives. People here do not enjoy that freedom.

I could probably show you videos of Saudi, Chinese or Israeli abuses of state power. However, do we really want to be comparing the US with such regimes?


what does the video have to do with habeas corpus?

You showed a video of US cops (perhaps) abusing their power and I showed you a video of French cops (perhaps) abusing their power.

I'm sure these young guys had all the laws behind them, after getting their black and blue bruises heal....?

what does the video have to do with habeas corpus?


are you asking me or someone else? Who made that claim?



You showed a video of US cops (perhaps) abusing their power and I showed you a video of French cops (perhaps) abusing their power.

I'm sure these young guys had all the laws behind them, after getting their black and blue bruises heal....?

Well, perhaps review this thread and you will find that the French victims enjoy a much fuller range of freedoms and legal protections that do not exist in this country. Now, I am not saying that lawyers and such do not exist in any case, but merely that the legal framework does not exist.

And that, indeed, says a lot. You are a non-citizen who is resident in the US and, as we discussed earlier, easily identifiable -- but you are not afraid to publish remarks like that.

I wonder if you would be unafraid to sit in Damascus and post them about the Syrian government; or do the same in Teheran about the Iranian government or, for that matter, do it in any city in Pakistan -- where you do have citizenship.

I will fully admit that I would not be brave enough to make such posts in any of the countries I mentioned (or many more). Perhaps the big, bad, USA is not anywhere as bad as it is being portrayed.

People say the same sort of thing in Pakistani cities, towns and villages, including about Pakistan's government, quite routinely. Perhaps a visit to Quetta, Peshawar or Karachi or rural areas beyond them is in order? Most such people there telling the Pakistani government to go "you know where" never get arrested (or "sent away").

Even in Iran people who are not afraid say such things. Some get visits, some couldn't care if they get visits because they are unafraid. I wouldn't use one individual's being unafraid to be much of a measure of anything except that a given individual is unafraid.

I'm sure these young guys had all the laws behind them, after getting their black and blue bruises heal....?

France and the US are no paragons of virtue in the use of force.

Regardless, better an individual -- even one abused by the police -- to have an absolute right to a trial than a conditional "right" to a trial. :eek:

Tasering Tasers allow officers to sublue suspects quickly and without hurting the suspect or themselves. And ive seen some 70 year old grannies who can put up a fight. After all, wasn't this grannt busted for domestic violence? Now who needs to get a clue? Anything to hate the police.... sigh
Thats exactly wrong....

They DO HURT, that his the whole idea. And you can seriously injure someone, or even kill someone like that
If oyu are tasered several times the muuscles spasm and as a result you can break your bones. Especially in your leg as the leg muscles are strong enough to do so.

One shot is enough to take someone down several can cause heart failure as it is the same power as a defilibrator.

Tasers are NOT save, and are used far too easily in the US. They are better then guns, but police officers are iether too dumb or not trained well enough to understand the full implication of a taser

Well, you can see what happened here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGlvEcPmug

What a dangerous criminal he was :rolleyes:

I hope we are all ashamed. I hope we are all very ashamed. What has this country become?
yeah he was really obeying the police and cooperating.

He REPEATEDLY was told to stand up and refused to do so.

So you just expect to disobey cops? Good idea. :rolleyes:

yeah he was really obeying the police and cooperating.

He REPEATEDLY was told to stand up and refused to do so.

So you just expect to disobey cops? Good idea. :rolleyes:


He deserves to be physically assaulted for not standing up? :rolleyes:

He was not doing harm to anybody. He was not a threat to anybody. And you really think someone deserves physical violence against their body for that? I am sure they could have carried him away for whatever bizarre reasons he wasn't allowed to be a library...if he then assulted them they would be justified in using force. This guy, however, did not lift a finger towards these officers.

Cops are supposed to protect and serve. We as a society give them the right to use violence only when aboslutely necessary. They were neither protecting nor serving in this incident.

Incidents like this just stir anomisty towards the police, and serve as justification for people who then decide to hurt and kill police officers. The vicious cycle never ends.

It seems like you like the idea of living in a fascist society where we must obey anything the police tell us to do. I for one, refuse to accept their orders when I know that I am not doing anything wrong. I call it 'freedom,' so in answer to your question, yes...people should disobey cops if they are not doing anything wrong.

Freedom not fascism.

France and the US are no paragons of virtue in the use of force.

you know what? we can debate this all day long.....and obviously you still need the last word in, but just because I want to hear your theory again, here is an arrest by the British Police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GvulJJe7s

Spanish Police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REIATJAPNhc

Italian Police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpi8oPUMKNw

Do you want me to look for video of every police force in the world?

you know what? we can debate this all day long.....and obviously you still need the last word in, but just because I want to hear your theory again, here is an arrest by the British Police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-GvulJJe7s

Spanish Police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REIATJAPNhc

Italian Police

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpi8oPUMKNw

Do you want me to look for video of every police force in the world?


But again, those are all 'free' countries. The US doesn't afford people basic civil rights...

But again, those are all 'free' countries. The US doesn't afford people basic civil rights...

You are losing me know :confused: :confused: :confused:

You are losing me know :confused: :confused: :confused:


perhaps you should re-read the discussion about Habeas Corpus!

perhaps you should re-read the discussion about Habeas Corpus!

I did, and you are jumping all over the board, and on that note I'm out of the building..... ;)

yeah he was really obeying the police and cooperating.

He REPEATEDLY was told to stand up and refused to do so.


He was told to stand up after he had been TASERed. Did you ever stop to think that he might have been physically unable to comply due to the pain or due to lack of control of his muscles? Did the cops stop to think that? Doubtful, instead they just kept shocking him over and over.

Sure some people, like physically fit macho cops who volunteer as TASER test subjects, might be able to respond/move normally seconds after being stunned, but that doesn't mean that the general population will have the same bounce back.

From: http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958


As the student and the officers were struggling, bystanders repeatedly asked the police officers to stop, and at one point officers told the gathered crowd to stand back and threatened to use a Taser on anyone who got too close.

Laila Gordy, a fourth-year economics student who was present in the library during the incident, said police officers threatened to shoot her with a Taser when she asked an officer for his name and his badge number.

Gordy was visibly upset by the incident and said other students were also disturbed.


I challenge ANYONE in this forum to justify an officer threatening to TASER an individual who asks for a name and badge number. IMO that officer should be terminated immediately with prejudice just for that offense.

Based on the multiple articles and witness accounts, I am completely convinced the officers were on an out of control power trip here. Regardless of the justification (or lack of it) of the actions against the original offender, such threats against bystanders are ridiculous. I think this is a perfect example of the point of this thread--visitors need to be warned of this sort of behavior.

you know what? we can debate this all day long.....and obviously you still need the last word in, but just because I want to hear your theory again, here is an arrest by the British Police:

.........

Do you want me to look for video of every police force in the world?

I did, and you are jumping all over the board, and on that note I'm out of the building..... ;)

It seems to me like your posts (or is it your handles this time??? :D) are jumping all over the board and the world. See your above post, which seems to makes your post the lucky target of your other post's words. :eek:

By the way, I'm not the topic. ;) Or is that another jumping all over the board? ;)

But again, those are all 'free' countries. The US doesn't afford people basic civil rights...


Just couple more observations.....

The so called 'free' countries except for UK (I believe and correct me if I'm wrong) require all their citizens to have a "National Identity Cards" - US does not (at least not yet). A cop could stop anybody on the street and demand to see the card, in US the cop does not have that right.

In Italy it's still a law for anybody visiting any place outside of their home area to register with a local police station, I don''t think that's true for US...

but you call it anything you want....

and on that note, I'm off to Temple Bar area in Dublin, where there was ... whooping done by some cops few days ago as reported by the local paper and the video can be found on the www.youtube.com.......

Just couple more observations.....

The so called 'free' countries except for UK (I believe and correct me if I'm wrong) require all their citizens to have a "National Identity Cards" - US does not (at least not yet). A cop could stop anybody on the street and demand to see the card, in US the cop does not have that right.

In Italy it's still a law for anybody visiting any place outside of their home area to register with a local police station, I don''t think that's true for US...

but you call it anything you want....

and on that note, I'm off to Temple Bar area in Dublin, where there was ... whooping done by some cops few days ago as reported by the local paper and the video can be found on the www.youtube.com.......

.....and obviously you still need the last word in

:D

Just couple more observations.....

The so called 'free' countries except for UK (I believe and correct me if I'm wrong) require all their citizens to have a "National Identity Cards" - US does not (at least not yet). A cop could stop anybody on the street and demand to see the card, in US the cop does not have that right.

In Italy it's still a law for anybody visiting any place outside of their home area to register with a local police station, I don''t think that's true for US...

but you call it anything you want....

and on that note, I'm off to Temple Bar area in Dublin, where there was ... whooping done by some cops few days ago as reported by the local paper and the video can be found on the www.youtube.com.......


and you point is? :confused:

What is your point? and how does this relate to the discussion here?

By the way, in Germany jaywalking is illegal and in Thailand beer is cheap.

and you point is? :confused:

What is your point? and how does this relate to the discussion here?

andrzej's post would -- at best -- seem to suggest a belief in some kind of equivalency between the right to a trial and the right to be free not to carry ID. As far as I'm concerned, I consider the right to a judicial trial to be far more critical to freedom than some ID requirement.

Within Burma, there is no requirement to carry ID; however, Burma does not, in practice, guarantee right to a fair judicial trial. So using andrzej's standard, Burma is as free as (or more free than) Italy. :rolleyes:

yeah he was really obeying the police and cooperating.

He REPEATEDLY was told to stand up and refused to do so.

So you just expect to disobey cops? Good idea. :rolleyes:

More details from the UCLA campus newspaper:

At around 11:30 p.m., CSOs asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the building immediately.

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.

It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.

(snip)


As the student was screaming, UCPD officers repeatedly told him to stand up and said "stop fighting us." The student did not stand up as the officers requested and they shot him with the Taser at least once more.

(snip)

As the student and the officers were struggling, bystanders repeatedly asked the police officers to stop, and at one point officers told the gathered crowd to stand back and threatened to use a Taser on anyone who got too close.

Laila Gordy, a fourth-year economics student who was present in the library during the incident, said police officers threatened to shoot her with a Taser when she asked an officer for his name and his badge number.


http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958

But again, those are all 'free' countries. The US doesn't afford people basic civil rights...

You don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know what you're talking about.

In what sense? I am making up the fact that Habeas Corpus doesn't exist and your country runs prison camps? or are you ignoring that fact for some reason?

In what sense? I am making up the fact that Habeas Corpus doesn't exist and your country runs prison camps? or are you ignoring that fact for some reason? Habeas Corpus does exist in the US, just not for non-US citizens who are suspected of being terrorists. But yes we do run prison camps.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Try substantiating the claim, if you can. ;)

Habeas Corpus does exist in the US, just not for non-US citizens who are suspected of being terrorists.

which of course can be any non-citizen. i.e. every visitor to this country.

Habeas Corpus does exist in the US, just not for non-US citizens who are suspected of being terrorists. But yes we do run prison camps.

The ability of a foreigner in the US to avail to habeas corpus exists at the arbitrary discretion of the Administration. In other words, for foreigners in America, an unconditional right to habeas corpus does not exist under the MCA -- at least unless the courts intervene and the Administration consequently complies with a Court ruling to that effect.

but should most of all scare foreign visitors: especially those with dark skin

Don't even need to be a foreign visitor. Being confused for a visitor is enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs

Fortunately not everyone "with dark skin" dies.

I can't think of any other way to minimize the risks, and I feel your terminology ("at the expense of the citizen") is a bit strong. The only "expense" for someone who is not actively resisting is to follow the directions of the officer.

If you assume that there is no "expense" in having your rights violated then that's a fine decision for you to make. I choose to not relenquish my rights so freely.

I infer from your comment that you believe that police officers are obligated to take risks so as not to chance offending your sensibilities or inconveniencing you in any way. I can't offer much in response, other than something like "things are tough all over" or "suck it up."

I believe that police officers are obligated to take risks so as not to violate my rights. That's the nature of the job. "Suck it up" is such an eloquent option.

I maintain, and other posters here have indicated, if you do as you are asked, your risk is minimal. And you always have the option of reporting any perceived misconduct to the officer's employer or resorting to the courts for redress.

If you view your rights as trivial and don't mind having them violated then fine. Not all of us feel that way.

Can you tell me that you have exercised your right to report officer misconduct and had your complaint ignored?

Yes.


I am reminded of a lawsuit that was filed against a corrections officer by a prison inmate.

I'm sure we can each spend all day coming up with crazy examples on both sides.

And, by the way, if anyone stabs or tries to stab me with an icepick or any other deadly weapon, I will use a flashlight, a gun, a tree, or anything else I can get my hands on to defend myself. I think most law enforcement officers would express a similar sentiment.

However if a cop tasered you for no reason you'd just go along with it, right?

Officers usually know factually whether a suspect has acted criminally or not. Being able to prove that under the rules of evidence is something else entirely. When you have that knowledge, but regularly see people escape the consequences of their acts, it's easy to see how one might become cynical.

No, they "suspect" that someone has acted criminally. That's why they're called suspects. Knowing that someone commited a crime is not a judgment that a cop should be making. And the cynicism of the officer is unfortunate, but then we come back to no one forcing him to be a cop.

A person is only truly innocent if they did not do what they were accused of.

Since the cop is part of the legal justice system then his definition of innocent should be that of the courts.

So, while he may have been not guilty, he was not innocent.

In the eyes of a cop in the line of duty (or a DA or whatver) he is innocent.

I don't know of any national statistics, but I can offer you what I believe to be a reasonable extrapolation.

Forgive my lack of faith in your WAG.

I'm a middle-aged white male, so that might be the case. But I would also proffer that I have witnessed a lot more police-citizen contacts than you have, and with people of all "profiles."

[QUOTE=copwriter]And I would suggest that, if your experience has been different, it might have a lot more to do with your demeanor and attitude than your "profile." I would probably be less likely to smile and wave back to a citizen that was looking at me like I was something the cat had done and neglected to cover up.

Again you keep making all these assumptions. I had a nice chat with an officer last night as I was coming out of starbucks because his police dog (who seemed way too friendly to be a police dog) was just begging to be petted and so I politely asked if I could do so and then did so.

However, I never even had a chance to speak to the officer who pulled me over for what he insisted was an overly loud exhaust on my car before he had me get out with my hands up (before I had even spoken to him), asked me to do things I can't physically do (like get down on my knees), handcuffed me (he seemed to be mad that I am unable to put weight on my knees), got more mad because I couldn't get to my feet while restrained (and he couldn't lift me up), then proceeded to conduct an illegal search of my car (which turned up nothing of course) and then cited me for a loud exhaust just based on his own ear (which turned out to be horribly inaccurate).

My "attitude" was never in question - he was treating me rudely and violating me rights before I even spoke to him. And wow, filling out those complaints are so effective...they didn't care at all. Oh, BTW, I'm a middle-aged white guy...

Habeas Corpus does exist in the US, just not for non-US citizens who are suspected of being terrorists. But yes we do run prison camps.

And if I picked you up on the street and accused you of being an enemy combatant just how would you prove that you're a citizen?

... I wouldn't use one individual's being unafraid to be much of a measure of anything except that a given individual is unafraid.and I never cofuse bravado with ignorance. ;)

and I never cofuse bravado with ignorance. ;)

Your "response" is one that misses the point I was making. ;)

Regarding "I never confuse bravado with ignorance", so you claim. ;)

In any event, to respond to this matter of ignorance and bravado which you raised:

Some people are willing to (and do) take the risk and do as they see fit -- even if there is a price. Many others are just chickens, afraid to even speak up while, in effect, hiding behind hollow proclamations of chickenhawks which go unchallenged by those many. :eek:

And if I picked you up on the street and accused you of being an enemy combatant just how would you prove that you're a citizen?

If this government has its way, you are at their mercy -- for they claim to be the masters of the universe in applying the label of "enemy combatant". :eek:

Try substantiating the claim, if you can. ;)

How did I know I would find a one-liner from you as a response ;)

How did I know I would find a one-liner from you as a response ;)

My post was a response which inquired about the substance of your post. Your post is a "response" that is a comment about me. One's on-topic, the other's off-topic. Care to guess which is which? :D

My post was a response which inquired about the substance of your post. Your post is a "response" that is a comment about me. One's on-topic, the other's off-topic. Care to guess which is which? :D

Nope, I'm sure you'll tell me ;)

Nope, I'm sure you'll tell me ;)
Actually your comment was about me. And you never did explain your personal attack.

and you point is? :confused:

What is your point?

My point? I tried to explain, but you have a hard time grasping it, or so it seems....Sorry, I'm out of this usless (at this time) thread!

We're just going around in circles.

Your "response" is one that misses the point I was making. ;)

Regarding "I never confuse bravado with ignorance", so you claim. ;)

In any event, to respond to this matter of ignorance and bravado which you raised:

Some people are willing to (and do) take the risk and do as they see fit -- even if there is a price. Many others are just chickens, afraid to even speak up while, in effect, hiding behind hollow proclamations of chickenhawks which go unchallenged by those many. :eek:

I was responding to the post that you cited.... not your comments... ;)

I was responding to the post that you cited.... not your comments... ;)

That's not news: I already knew. Keeping that in mind is the only way to get a proper reading of my post. I suggest re-reading my post. ;)

Actually your comment was about me. And you never did explain your personal attack.

I was just getting a bit tired of the opinion of some posters that everything about America is bad and any opprotunity should be used to bash it.

Imagine the screams from the leftists if I started spewing the same crap about other countries (namely those in the Middle East with such excellent human rights records). :rolleyes:

I was just getting a bit tired of the opinion of some posters that everything about America is bad and any opprotunity should be used to bash it.

Imagine the screams from the leftists if I started spewing the same crap about other countries (namely those in the Middle East with such excellent human rights records). :rolleyes:


Seeing as you are using a quotation from me as your base for this rather silly comment, would you mind explaing what your attack is all about?


I did not see anyone on this thread say that "everything about America is bad." Would you care to point me to an instance of what you are talking about so that we are all on the same page here?

In fact I rather like the ability to be critical of our representatives. In my opinion, that is what used to fundementally separate this country from places such as North Korea, Burma, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc. However, now with the lack of habaes corpus.....

I was just getting a bit tired of the opinion of some posters that everything about America is bad and any opprotunity should be used to bash it.

I've seen no such "everything about America is bad" assertions in this thread. Unless you are a mind-reader extraordinaire, your frustration seems misplaced or a willing mischaracterization of others' posts.

Imagine the screams from the leftists if I started spewing the same crap about other countries (namely those in the Middle East with such excellent human rights records). :rolleyes:

Taser use in the "Greater Middle East" is cause for concern too. It's already led to deaths. :eek: And going beyond that and deeper into Asia, watch out for Malaysia which seems to be getting closer to allowing individuals (i.e., non-state actors/non-state-sponsored actors) to carry them too. ;)

Well, you can see what happened here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGlvEcPmug

What a dangerous criminal he was :rolleyes:

I hope we are all ashamed. I hope we are all very ashamed. What has this country become?I didn't "see" much at all. The clip didn't show any of the actions of the student or the police prior to the application of the TASER, and not much thereafter. I did hear the police repeatedly give directions in a calm, reasoned voice (as opposed to the voice of the student, which was insulting, profane, and attempting to incite other people in the library to rescue him), all of which were ignored.

This recording does tell me quite a bit about the incident. He was asked to leave, and he refused. He shouts several times, "I told you I would leave!" Telling someone you will leave, and leaving, are different things. This guy wasn't going to leave until he had made his grandstand play at a venue where peace and quiet is the expected and required behavior.

Having been at the UCLA campus a few times, I would wager that there were a number of Middle Eastern folks there who bore the same ethnic characteristics as this jerk, and who regularly enter the library, study there, and leave without incident.

I note that we have some activist types demanding that the officers provide their names and badge numbers, as if the cops will be able to keep it a secret that they were involved in this melee with what appear to be 50 or more witnesses. I wonder what the people making these demands expected? "Why, of course, sir. I am delighted to provide you my identifying information so that you may demonize me in every way possible, for this is my chosen lot in life. Just a moment while I release this irrational gentleman whom has been the focus of the efforts of myself and several other uniformed terrorist pigs, so that he may run away handcuffed, injure himself, and then sue us for everything we own. Your demand for this data takes precedence over any duty we may have to restore order to the library, protect our prisoner from himself and others, and follow established police and criminal procedures. Here you go - here is my business card, with a signed confession to any atrocities you have have witnessed or imagined. Oops - I beg your pardon. Please grant me leave without too much more delay, as I see that Mr. I-Told-You-I-Would-Leave has run headlong into a fountain, and will either drown or be beaten into protoplasm by the throng of intoxicated frat boys who are moving in on him as we speak. Good day, sir, and power to the correct people."

From the evidence here, it appears that the TASER was used in an entirely appropriate manner. A person was given a lawful order and was trying to agitate people in the vicinity to come to his aid, creating a much more dangerous environment for the police. I and others have already explained the hazards of police grappling with a suspect close-in. The student was taken down in a way that caused him great discomfort, but no injury. Of course, he didn't get to thumb his nose at the cops and actually looked pretty stupid, but for that part, the police only finished the job he had begun so elegantly.

Because someone will maintain that the student was unable to stand up as a result of being disabled by the TASER, I note that he got to his feet rather enthusiastically when the current was re-applied after several commands to "stand up." Had he been disabled, he would have remained on the ground. He wanted to make the most of his fifteen minutes of fame, and be as much of a pain in the butt as humanly possible. I sincerely hope that he is banned from the campus, so that people who have gone there to study and learn something useful can do so in relative peace.

They DO HURT, that his the whole idea.On that note, we agree. TASERs are, in part, a pain compliance device.
And you can seriously injure someone, or even kill someone like that
If oyu are tasered several times the muuscles spasm and as a result you can break your bones. Especially in your leg as the leg muscles are strong enough to do so.Please provide even a single example of this having occurred.
One shot is enough to take someone down several can cause heart failure as it is the same power as a defilibrator.I think you mean "defibrillator," and the two devices are only similar in that they both introduce electric current through the body. The levels of current, and their effects, are very different.
Tasers are NOT save, and are used far too easily in the US. They are better then guns, but police officers are iether too dumb or not trained well enough to understand the full implication of a taserThere is a factor of being either too dumb or insufficiently trained working here, but neither apply to the police.

He was not doing harm to anybody. He was not a threat to anybody. And you really think someone deserves physical violence against their body for that? I am sure they could have carried him away for whatever bizarre reasons he wasn't allowed to be a library...if he then assulted them they would be justified in using force. This guy, however, did not lift a finger towards these officers. You are incorrect. The police are authorized to use force in order to effect an arrest. It is not required that they first be assaulted. In fact, if you assault a police officer, he is trained and completely justified to respond with force considerably beyond the level of the TASER.

The arrestee was a threat to the peace and order of the UCLA community. The police are supposed to maintain that peace and order. He was asked to leave, and he refused. He was told to leave, and he refused. Even after he was taken down with the TASER and handcuffed, he refused to leave. He created his own problem.

And the police are not obligated to carry anyone anywhere, especially if they are able to walk, as this person clearly was. Back injuries are very common in police work, either because of a traumatic injury or due to the repeated stress of wearing 25 lbs. of equipment around your waist for 20 years or so. As a result, pain compliance measures are used to compel people to walk. People refuse to walk in these situations because they want to look as helpless and oppressed as possible. Had I been in that library studying for an exam, I would have been the person helpless and oppressed, because I can't force Stupid to shut up and get out, and I'm using the library for its intended purpose, rather than as a political platform. The police acted in the best interests of the UCLA community, whose rights take precedence over the desires of a badly behaved moron who has no respect for the needs of others.

I challenge ANYONE in this forum to justify an officer threatening to TASER an individual who asks for a name and badge number. IMO that officer should be terminated immediately with prejudice just for that offense.You seem very quick to favor depriving someone of their livelihood on the basis of a line in a newspaper.

Asking an officer for a name and badge number is not, in itself, a justification for using force. Demanding that the officer drop what he is doing and provide it at that moment, or moving so close to the officer so as to give him reason to fear for his safety and the safety of anyone in his charge, is justification. But it appears that she complied with the officer's orders, and she didn't have any force used on her. See how simple this can be? You don't always get what you want when you want it. The world doesn't turn just for you.

Based on the multiple articles and witness accounts, I am completely convinced the officers were on an out of control power trip here. Regardless of the justification (or lack of it) of the actions against the original offender, such threats against bystanders are ridiculous. I think this is a perfect example of the point of this thread--visitors need to be warned of this sort of behavior.Wow - a camera phone video that shows mostly some desktops at the library, and a few lines from a newspaper article, and you are "completely convinced" of the officers' malfeasance. Please make this known if you are ever called to serve on a jury.

If you assume that there is no "expense" in having your rights violated then that's a fine decision for you to make. I choose to not relenquish my rights so freely.I wonder if you know what your "rights" are. My experience, as a cop and a criminal justice professor, is that few people do. And, if I believe my rights have been violated, I will take it up in the appropriate forum.

I believe that police officers are obligated to take risks so as not to violate my rights. That's the nature of the job. "Suck it up" is such an eloquent option.It's the best I could do on short notice. But this risk vs. rights thing isn't all in your favor. Objective reasonableness plays a significant role. Take a look at Graham v. Connor (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=490&invol=386) for the USSC's take on this. In particular, read the facts of the case and then see how the USSC interpreted and ruled on the reasonableness of the officers' conduct. This case, by the way, is arguably the cornerstone of police use of force policies in the United States.

If you view your rights as trivial and don't mind having them violated then fine. Not all of us feel that way. I don't feel that way at all. But I don't seem to be in situations where this has been a concern, and if I do perceive a violation, I'll address it in the forum put in place for that purpose. Choose an inappropriate forum, and operate at your own peril. You don't get to do anything you want anywhere you want to do it, even if you think you have a right to do so.

Can you tell me that you have exercised your right to report officer misconduct and had your complaint ignored?Yes. Then you just weren't persistent enough. If the law enforcement agency that employs the officer ignores you, take it to the local prosecuting attorney or the state's attorney general. I won't pretend that these things never happen, but I have yet to see a criminal justice system that was corrupt and condoning officer misconduct throughout the entire state structure.

However if a cop tasered you for no reason you'd just go along with it, right? For no reason, no, I wouldn't ignore it. But the examples that I have seen discussed here don't describe a situation of "no reason," but rather one where the person objecting just didn't like the reason or thought it didn't merit that level of force. There will always be differences of opinion there. I tend to side with those opinions that were reached by people who had all of the facts and evidence available, and were capable of evaluating it intelligently. The majority of objections to uses of force by police I've seen here were from people with what I perceive to be an anti-authority agenda, and a deficit amount of knowledge in the technical areas under discussion.

Officers usually know factually whether a suspect has acted criminally or not. ]No, they "suspect" that someone has acted criminally. That's why they're called suspects. Knowing that someone commited a crime is not a judgment that a cop should be making. And the cynicism of the officer is unfortunate, but then we come back to no one forcing him to be a cop.[/QUOTE]The majority of the people I arrested during my police career had committed the relevant offense in my presence. I knew they were factually guilty. Most of the exceptions were in domestic violence cases, where there was both evidence of the crime and supporting statements from the victim(s), and in those cases I was obligated by law to make an arrest if there was probable cause to do so.

And you don't have your terminology quite right. A "suspect" is someone suspected of having committed a crime. If they are arrested, they aren't a suspect anymore. They are an arrestee or a prisoner, and once they have had their first appearance before a judge, they're a defendant.

If I see you standing naked outside an elementary school, I don't suspect you of having committed the crime of indecent exposure - I know you did it. If I arrest you, it is then contingent upon me to write a report, collect witness statements, and gather other evidence so that I can make a convincing case in court. If I fail to do so, you'll be found not guilty. I know you're not "innocent," but if I (actually, the prosecutor) can't meet that burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then you're "not guilty." Big difference in terminology and concepts.

And, by the way, most cops start out as pretty idealistic at the beginning of their careers. The cynicism is an unfortunate byproduct of experience.

Since the cop is part of the legal justice system then his definition of innocent should be that of the courts.And, I believe it is. But understand that there is no judicial finding of "innocent." The case is proven or it is not, and the defendant is liable (criminally or civilly, and each has a different standard of proof) for the alleged conduct or they're not. In a criminal trial, the defendant is guilty, not guilty, or the case is dismissed. In a civil proceeding, the court finds for the plaintiff or for the defendant. But there's no "innocent" stamp on the judge's bench.

Forgive my lack of faith in your WAG. (with regard to my claim that fewer than 1% of police officers ever commit a serious act of misconduct) gave you a method to test my claim, and you characterize it as a wild-a** guess. I challenge you to do better. You may not like the numbers, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

I'm a middle-aged white male, so that might be the case. But I would also proffer that I have witnessed a lot more police-citizen contacts than you have, and with people of all "profiles." Again you keep making all these assumptions. I had a nice chat with an officer last night as I was coming out of starbucks because his police dog (who seemed way too friendly to be a police dog) was just begging to be petted and so I politely asked if I could do so and then did so.

However, I never even had a chance to speak to the officer who pulled me over for what he insisted was an overly loud exhaust on my car before he had me get out with my hands up (before I had even spoken to him), asked me to do things I can't physically do (like get down on my knees), handcuffed me (he seemed to be mad that I am unable to put weight on my knees), got more mad because I couldn't get to my feet while restrained (and he couldn't lift me up), then proceeded to conduct an illegal search of my car (which turned up nothing of course) and then cited me for a loud exhaust just based on his own ear (which turned out to be horribly inaccurate).

My "attitude" was never in question - he was treating me rudely and violating me rights before I even spoke to him. And wow, filling out those complaints are so effective...they didn't care at all. Oh, BTW, I'm a middle-aged white guy...You've described two encounters with police officers, and apparently extrapolate the state of the entire American law enforcement community from this (and you call my method of estimating the number of police misconduct cases a wild-a** guess?). I agree that the conduct of the police officer on the traffic stop would be egregious, but you'll forgive me if I don't accept your account without knowing something about the officer's side. Remember the example I gave previously about the inmate, the corrections officer, and the ice pick? A one-sided description is always going to be suspect. I'm curious - how was this incident portrayed in court, and what was the outcome? And, if you didn't take it to court, then I submit that you are a victim of your own failure to act. I've argued consistently that there is an appropriate forum to protest violations of one's rights, and in this example, that's it.

By the way, I've worked closely with police dogs (we call them K-9s) and their handlers, and most of them are friendly and playful when not "on command" (the dogs, not the handlers - come to think of it, some of the handlers were like that, too). One of the selection factors is the dog's intelligence, and they have an innate understanding of when it's work time and when it's "make friends" time.

well, well, well

Instead of the "rights violated" blather, we have some real life experience that kinda slam dunks this silliness...... ^

well, well, well

Instead of the "rights violated" blather, we have some real life experience that kinda slam dunks this silliness...... ^

:rolleyes: Willing to be the subject in "recreating" such an incident to see what the possibilities are? ;)

I didn't "see" much at all. The clip didn't show any of the actions of the student or the police prior to the application of the TASER, and not much thereafter. I did hear the police repeatedly give directions in a calm, reasoned voice (as opposed to the voice of the student, which was insulting, profane, and attempting to incite other people in the library to rescue him), all of which were ignored.

This recording does tell me quite a bit about the incident. He was asked to leave, and he refused. He shouts several times, "I told you I would leave!" Telling someone you will leave, and leaving, are different things. This guy wasn't going to leave until he had made his grandstand play at a venue where peace and quiet is the expected and required behavior.

Having been at the UCLA campus a few times, I would wager that there were a number of Middle Eastern folks there who bore the same ethnic characteristics as this jerk, and who regularly enter the library, study there, and leave without incident.

I note that we have some activist types demanding that the officers provide their names and badge numbers, as if the cops will be able to keep it a secret that they were involved in this melee with what appear to be 50 or more witnesses. I wonder what the people making these demands expected? "Why, of course, sir. I am delighted to provide you my identifying information so that you may demonize me in every way possible, for this is my chosen lot in life. Just a moment while I release this irrational gentleman whom has been the focus of the efforts of myself and several other uniformed terrorist pigs, so that he may run away handcuffed, injure himself, and then sue us for everything we own. Your demand for this data takes precedence over any duty we may have to restore order to the library, protect our prisoner from himself and others, and follow established police and criminal procedures. Here you go - here is my business card, with a signed confession to any atrocities you have have witnessed or imagined. Oops - I beg your pardon. Please grant me leave without too much more delay, as I see that Mr. I-Told-You-I-Would-Leave has run headlong into a fountain, and will either drown or be beaten into protoplasm by the throng of intoxicated frat boys who are moving in on him as we speak. Good day, sir, and power to the correct people."

From the evidence here, it appears that the TASER was used in an entirely appropriate manner. A person was given a lawful order and was trying to agitate people in the vicinity to come to his aid, creating a much more dangerous environment for the police. I and others have already explained the hazards of police grappling with a suspect close-in. The student was taken down in a way that caused him great discomfort, but no injury. Of course, he didn't get to thumb his nose at the cops and actually looked pretty stupid, but for that part, the police only finished the job he had begun so elegantly.

Because someone will maintain that the student was unable to stand up as a result of being disabled by the TASER, I note that he got to his feet rather enthusiastically when the current was re-applied after several commands to "stand up." Had he been disabled, he would have remained on the ground. He wanted to make the most of his fifteen minutes of fame, and be as much of a pain in the butt as humanly possible. I sincerely hope that he is banned from the campus, so that people who have gone there to study and learn something useful can do so in relative peace.

Typical "police apologist" kind of lines. Get "expert witness" fees for such kind of defence in excessive use of force cases? ;)

Typical "police apologist" kind of lines. Get "expert witness" fees for such kind of defence in excessive use of force cases? ;)

He is not being paid to post here, apparently has quite a bit more experience in the field than you and I combined, and gave a very articulated and well-thought-out explanation.

I would think he deserves a bit more respect than your reply gives him.

He is not being paid to post here, apparently has quite a bit more experience in the field than you and I combined, and gave a very articulated and well-thought-out explanation.

I would think he deserves a bit more respect than your reply gives him.

There is nothing disrespectful in noting that such kind of lines are used for "police apologist" purposes, by way of "expert witness" testimony, in excessive use of force cases.

You are incorrect. The police are authorized to use force in order to effect an arrest. It is not required that they first be assaulted. In fact, if you assault a police officer, he is trained and completely justified to respond with force considerably beyond the level of the TASER.

The arrestee was a threat to the peace and order of the UCLA community. The police are supposed to maintain that peace and order. He was asked to leave, and he refused. He was told to leave, and he refused. Even after he was taken down with the TASER and handcuffed, he refused to leave. He created his own problem.

And the police are not obligated to carry anyone anywhere, especially if they are able to walk, as this person clearly was. Back injuries are very common in police work, either because of a traumatic injury or due to the repeated stress of wearing 25 lbs. of equipment around your waist for 20 years or so. As a result, pain compliance measures are used to compel people to walk. People refuse to walk in these situations because they want to look as helpless and oppressed as possible. Had I been in that library studying for an exam, I would have been the person helpless and oppressed, because I can't force Stupid to shut up and get out, and I'm using the library for its intended purpose, rather than as a political platform. The police acted in the best interests of the UCLA community, whose rights take precedence over the desires of a badly behaved moron who has no respect for the needs of others.


Any cop with half a brain and even an ounce of human compassion would realise that the arestee was not a threat. He was leaving when they approached him. I do not have the energy to repond to all your words and sentances. However, I have read them all, and it saddens me to see how some people are able to be so indocrinated with the power of the state that they lose touch with the human compassion, kindness, and understanding. The arestee was not hurting anyone, and I can imagine that a bit of intelligent discussion with him could have easily difused the situation instead of the macho posturing of these rather sick cops that seem to delight in dishing out pain and letting people who 'who is boss'

Asking an officer for a name and badge number is not, in itself, a justification for using force. Demanding that the officer drop what he is doing and provide it at that moment, or moving so close to the officer so as to give him reason to fear for his safety and the safety of anyone in his charge, is justification. But it appears that she complied with the officer's orders, and she didn't have any force used on her. See how simple this can be? You don't always get what you want when you want it. The world doesn't turn just for you.

.


Now this is absolutely insane. There is no defense for their actions and they should immediately be fired and stripped of any benefits or pensions. The cop didn't need to threaten physical violence on innocent bystanders. If the cop was not ready to provide a badge number, they could have simply stated that they are taking the arestee into custody and will provide abadge number as soon as he is handcuffed in the cop car. Simple isn't it. You are blinding yourself to the real reason the cops did not want their badge #s given out. They knew they were doing something wrong. Try thinking outside of your box that seems to have been thoroughly shaped and disciplined by being an agent of this violent state that we live in.

Get "expert witness" fees for such kind of defence in excessive use of force cases? ;)I think the closest I ever came to being an expert witness was when I advised a local attorney whether a DUI case involving one of his clients (criminal law was not his usual area of practice) was viable. I got $50 for that. But I do have friends that act as expert witnesses, and are very persuasive to juries who would otherwise see only what the plaintiffs want them to see. To paraphrase what I said earlier, just because you don't like the facts does not mean they are wrong.

To paraphrase what I said earlier, just because you don't like the facts does not mean they are wrong.

That was exactly my point in a prior post.

Any cop with half a brain and even an ounce of human compassion would realise that the arestee was not a threat. He was leaving when they approached him. I do not have the energy to repond to all your words and sentances. However, I have read them all, and it saddens me to see how some people are able to be so indocrinated with the power of the state that they lose touch with the human compassion, kindness, and understanding. The arestee was not hurting anyone, and I can imagine that a bit of intelligent discussion with him could have easily difused the situation instead of the macho posturing of these rather sick cops that seem to delight in dishing out pain and letting people who 'who is boss'One does not need to be "hurting anyone" to violate the law and encroach on the rights of others. If my neighbor is playing his stereo so loud that I can't sleep, I may not be hurt, but I am constrained from enjoying the peace and quiet of my home. And while it would be reasonable and expected that the police would use measures that did not require force in order to get him to comply with noise ordinances, sometimes that is all that is left. On a larger scale, that is why mankind has been fighting wars for as long as anyone can remember. Diplomacy is preferred, but there is a limit to human patience. As for "intelligent discussion," I've been in hundreds of situations like that, and it is usually impossible. Mr. I-Told-You-I-Would-Leave was going to stand and spout as long as he had an audience. If you can't remove the audience, remove the act.

And, just so as we're clear, in that situation, the police are "boss." This is a graphic example of what happens when someone resists this idea. I believe that the ruckus started when it was found that the problem child didn't have the appropriate credentials to use the library. That would have been the time to leave.

Now this is absolutely insane. There is no defense for their actions and they should immediately be fired and stripped of any benefits or pensions. The cop didn't need to threaten physical violence on innocent bystanders. If the cop was not ready to provide a badge number, they could have simply stated that they are taking the arestee into custody and will provide abadge number as soon as he is handcuffed in the cop car. Simple isn't it. You are blinding yourself to the real reason the cops did not want their badge #s given out. They knew they were doing something wrong. Try thinking outside of your box that seems to have been thoroughly shaped and disciplined by being an agent of this violent state that we live in.I will give your opinion a bit more weight if you can demonstrate for me that the UCLA Police Department concealed the identities of the officers, or otherwise resisted efforts to identify them. As I have said before, there is a time and place for everything. Demanding that a cop stop what he is doing and answer your question presumes that your needs take priority over everyone else's and everything else.

And try this idea on for size. I imagine that you, like me and everyone else I know, has done something that violated the law at one time or another. If the only evidence of your wrongdoing as a camera phone video like the one under the discussion, and a few lines from a newspaper article, would you be willing to accept responsibility for your actions and take the consequences prescribed by someone who had no other information to work with? Or would you want the opportunity to explain yourself and present evidence mitigating the conduct? Why are you so quick to urge denial of due process to the cops, but would insist on it for yourself?

One does not need to be "hurting anyone" to violate the law and encroach on the rights of others. If my neighbor is playing his stereo so loud that I can't sleep, I may not be hurt, but I am constrained from enjoying the peace and quiet of my home. And while it would be reasonable and expected that the police would use measures that did not require force in order to get him to comply with noise ordinances, sometimes that is all that is left. On a larger scale, that is why mankind has been fighting wars for as long as anyone can remember. Diplomacy is preferred, but there is a limit to human patience. As for "intelligent discussion," I've been in hundreds of situations like that, and it is usually impossible. Mr. I-Told-You-I-Would-Leave was going to stand and spout as long as he had an audience. If you can't remove the audience, remove the act.


If you read the news reports about this, you will see that he was actually leaving when he ran into the police. This character was obvisly not hurting or bothering anybody as is obvious by the way students are rallying around him and not the police aggressors. The police used a violence first questions later approach that you seem to have no problem with. Maybe if police baton or taser your mother, sister, daughter, or wife for not showing an ID you might have a different view on this. Is it because he is an outspoken Iranian American man that people do not see a problem with him being physically attacked?




And, just so as we're clear, in that situation, the police are "boss." This is a graphic example of what happens when someone resists this idea. I believe that the ruckus started when it was found that the problem child didn't have the appropriate credentials to use the library. That would have been the time to leave.

No! The police are not "boss"! and the police should never be boss. We the people are the boss. The police are there to protect and serve. This is not North Korea, Israel or Saudi yet. The police are certainly boss is those places. If the police are violent without just cause they should certainly be resisted with whatever means possible.


That would have been the time to leave.

As stated, from what I have read, he was leaving. And even if he wasn't the police did not take the time to politely ask him to do so. The police should not be excempt from societal norms of saying please and thank you.

One does not need to be "hurting anyone" to violate the law and encroach on the rights of others. If my neighbor is playing his stereo so loud that I can't sleep, I may not be hurt, but I am constrained from enjoying the peace and quiet of my home. And while it would be reasonable and expected that the police would use measures that did not require force in order to get him to comply with noise ordinances, sometimes that is all that is left. On a larger scale, that is why mankind has been fighting wars for as long as anyone can remember. Diplomacy is preferred, but there is a limit to human patience. As for "intelligent discussion," I've been in hundreds of situations like that, and it is usually impossible. Mr. I-Told-You-I-Would-Leave was going to stand and spout as long as he had an audience. If you can't remove the audience, remove the act.

And, just so as we're clear, in that situation, the police are "boss." This is a graphic example of what happens when someone resists this idea. I believe that the ruckus started when it was found that the problem child didn't have the appropriate credentials to use the library. That would have been the time to leave.

If the person at the library was a Baywatch "babe", I doubt she'd be repeatedly tasered in this way in the same sort of circumstances.

Did he really not have the appropriate credentials to use the library, or was it merely that he could not, at that time, present to the police the photo ID representing that he does have the appropriate credentials to use the library? ;) I thought it was more the latter than the former.

I will give your opinion a bit more weight if you can demonstrate for me that the UCLA Police Department concealed the identities of the officers, or otherwise resisted efforts to identify them. As I have said before, there is a time and place for everything. Demanding that a cop stop what he is doing and answer your question presumes that your needs take priority over everyone else's and everything else.


Your point is simply irrelevant. There is no justification for the police to threaten violence on those innocent bystanders. The police should either be fired for their aggressive acts or be fired for being too stupid to understand that people asking them for a badge number was not an act of aggression against them that demanded pushiment by electrocution.

That was exactly my point in a prior post.Given that we're approaching 170 posts in this thread, you'll forgive me if I don't go back to see which one you're referring to.

If the person at the library was a Baywatch "babe", I doubt she'd be repeatedly tasered in this way in the same sort of circumstances.


Exactly, there is no way a sorority girl would have had this happen to her. I'm sure the cops would have been polite and asked her to move anumber of times before resorting to any sort of aggression.

I really hope non-FTers from around the world come to read this thread and seriously reconsider any plans that they may have to travel in this country as long as we live under such an aggressive regime.

Your point is simply irrelevant. There is no justification for the police to threaten violence on those innocent bystanders. The police should either be fired for their aggressive acts or be fired for being too stupid to understand that people asking them for a badge number was not an act of aggression against them that demanded pushiment by electrocution.

I agree. In any event, I think we are going to see a lot more of such things happening in the years ahead. :eek: And with that, expect more deaths -- particularly of those who are generally perceived as minorities in America. :(

Given that we're approaching 170 posts in this thread, you'll forgive me if I don't go back to see which one you're referring to.

People dying from taser use, particularly repeated taser use.

I really hope non-FTers from around the world come to read this thread and seriously reconsider any plans that they may have to travel in this country as long as we live under such an aggressive regime.

That may be a very long time, for I think we are going to see a lot more of such things happening in the years ahead. :eek: And with that, expect more deaths -- particularly of those who are generally perceived as minorities in America.

If you read the news reports about this, you will see that he was actually leaving when he ran into the police. This character was obvisly not hurting or bothering anybody as is obvious by the way students are rallying around him and not the police aggressors. The police used a violence first questions later approach that you seem to have no problem with. Maybe if police baton or taser your mother, sister, daughter, or wife for not showing an ID you might have a different view on this. Is it because he is an outspoken Iranian American man that people do not see a problem with him being physically attacked?No, I was hoping that no one would play "the race card." And university students are prone to gather around and offer opinions on matters they know little about, and to grandstand for the benefit of others. I've been on both sides of that transaction.

And I continue to maintain that the accounts of the officers have not been considered. You haven't got one person's word against another's - you have one faction's word against nothing.
No! The police are not "boss"! and the police should never be boss. We the people are the boss. The police are there to protect and serve. This is not North Korea, Israel or Saudi yet. The police are certainly boss is those places. If the police are violent without just cause they should certainly be resisted with whatever means possible.News bulletin: during an investigation (and the UCLA incident was an investigation), on a traffic stop, and any other time that a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he or she is "boss," and the courts have repeatedly reaffirmed this. The UCLA library incident is a rather graphic example of what can happen when someone resists this notion.

"We the People" elect the folks that make the laws. We can petition the government for redress of grievances. But there will always be an authority figure who will have the police powers to step in when the situation goes sideways. When that happens, go with the flow or suffer the consequences.

As stated, from what I have read, he was leaving. And even if he wasn't the police did not take the time to politely ask him to do so. The police should not be excempt from societal norms of saying please and thank you.I believe that the newspaper account of this incident indicated that he was first approached by UCLA Police Community Service Officers (uniformed but unarmed employees with no arrest powers, who patrol and provide services that do not require the capacities of a sworn officer) who found that he didn't have the credentials to use the library. I assume that they asked him to leave, and he refused. In these days of people placing bombs in buildings to advance the cause of the week, police have to investigate these situations a bit more carefully. And I won't pretend that the Middle Eastern heritage wasn't a factor - it's just foolish to ignore this kind of detail. The CSOs called the regular officers. What happened between the time the regular officers arrived and the disturbance began is unclear from the newspaper reports (which I have learned never to depend on). I doubt if anyone started out the contact with anything like "Up against the wall, raghead!" University police operate in an extremely sensitive environment, surrounded by people who will criticize their every move. It would be very out of character for these officers to do anything to inflame the situation without some compelling reason to do so.

If the person at the library was a Baywatch "babe", I doubt she'd be repeatedly tasered in this way in the same sort of circumstances.Because of disparities in physical size and strength, it is often easier to physically restrain women than it is men. And women are less prone to offer violence than are men. But I learned early on that the idea that gentlemen don't hit women was not applicable in police work.

Did he really not have the appropriate credentials to use the library, or was it merely that he could not, at that time, present to the police the photo ID representing that he does have the appropriate credentials to use the library? ;) I thought it was more the latter than the former.I haven't seen any evidence to support this, and I don't think it matters. If you travel internationally, you need to have your passport. If you don't have it with you, you won't get past passport control. The same is true of other credentials needed to show that you have the right to be where you are and do what you are doing, whether you just don't happen to have them with you or not.

Your point is simply irrelevant. There is no justification for the police to threaten violence on those innocent bystanders. The police should either be fired for their aggressive acts or be fired for being too stupid to understand that people asking them for a badge number was not an act of aggression against them that demanded pushiment by electrocution.Now we're just going around in circles. You're not convinced. Okay. But note that you've escalated the alleged conduct from warning someone that they would be TASERed to "pushiment by electrocution." This is the kind of hyperbole that pot-stirrers use to inflame crowds, and one of the reasons that the police have to act quickly and decisively to end the incident and restore order. The 1965 Watts Riots began with a traffic stop by the California Highway Patrol. Other people started showing up to throw things at the cops, and the city burned for five days. You may have forgotten about that. The police can't afford to.

People dying from taser use, particularly repeated taser use.I think you've said this before, and I've responded to it. Repeating it doesn't make your case stronger. I have yet to see a fully-investigated account that supports your claim, much as you would like it to be true.

I think you've said this before, and I've responded to it. Repeating it doesn't make your case stronger. I have yet to see a fully-investigated account that supports your claim, much as you would like it to be true.

Repeating the above disbelief doesn't make your case stronger; nor has any fully-investigated account dismissed the reports upon which I relied in my earlier posts when stating that tasers have killed people before. The dirt comes out eventually.

I haven't seen any evidence to support this, and I don't think it matters.

It's been a while since I've been to a UCLA campus library, but there used to be a procedure where those authorized to use the library who didn't have ID with them could get inside still and were authorized both to use the facilities and to check out materials.

If you travel internationally, you need to have your passport. If you don't have it with you, you won't get past passport control. The same is true of other credentials needed to show that you have the right to be where you are and do what you are doing, whether you just don't happen to have them with you or not.

Arguing by analogy, as you have done herein, doesn't work well; but it routinely makes for great rhetoric. The additional problem here is the rhetoric relies upon a claim that doesn't even perfectly fit with reality. That is, your first sentence is not true, for it's well possible to travel internationally in many cases without a passport; and in a good number of cases it's even possible without any photo ID on person at all.

I should probably have let this one die a natural death, but I came across this first person account (http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=12336) of the infamous UCLA Library incident today. It's a bit less spun than the newspaper account. Warning: the language is bit more coarse than we typically use here, and the full message thread is even worse. Yes, I have heard all of those words and said most of them, but some of you seem to have especially delicate sensibilities.

Okay kids, I'm here!

Yes, I was indeed at Powell Library at approximately 11:30 on Tuesday night, and yes I did see the entire event as it went down.

Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his ... kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college students...this was before the real UCPD got called in). He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.

Just as a little backstory, one of the quotes the guy has on his facebook (which he now has taken down) was "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems".

He definitely taunted the UCPD into behaving the way they did with him.

Edit: Many people have questioned the fact that the cops tazed him and asked him to get up, and tazed him again even though he shouldn't have the capability to get up. This was not the case here to my knowledge, because the cops were using their "drive-stun" method which administers less of a jolt than normal. I believe this because anyone who can ramble on about this being the patriot act and yell at the top of his lungs should have the capability of getting up.

Also I'd like to add that our local campus patrol officers (the college guys with the night jobs) and the UCPD have a really good track record, and my experiences with them have been great. In the food chain of good cop/bad cop, these guys are definitely on the "letting .... slide" part.

I have class with one campus officers who was there last night, so I'm going to ask him what his take was on it and what they were discussing while this was going down.

By the way if you have any questions, feel free to ask.

I'm a recent UCLA alum, and I can definitely say that the CSO's (Community Service Officers) that are students are VERY lenient and usually very good (minus the couple .......s that take the job just to hand out write-ups and such). Also, my dealings with the UCPD have always been much better than other police (which is saying something since they are an actual police office with the same jurisdication as any other California police department; they aren't just stuck within the school). It looked in the video like the towards the end the force was a little bit out of whack, but I'm sure the guy had to be a real ........ to get to there. Anyways, who is gonna start a protest over having to leave the library at 11 pm?

A wise man once told me, "Do not f*** with the alligator until you have fully negotiated the swamp."

I should probably have let this one die a natural death, but I came across this first person account (http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=12336) of the infamous UCLA Library incident today. It's a bit less spun than the newspaper account. Warning: the language is bit more coarse than we typically use here, and the full message thread is even worse. Yes, I have heard all of those words and said most of them, but some of you seem to have especially delicate sensibilities.

Any validation on that board that the person was even around LA at the time of that incident? Even for that board, Doormat's a relative newbie.

In the absence of more, hbax's words seem to be a characterization of something based on little more than the video and being on the campus before. Going from the general to the specific, as that person does, also presents problems -- especially as the incident is clearly an "exception" and not a daily incident on campus.

A wise man once told me, "Do not f*** with the alligator until you have fully negotiated the swamp."

No one ever fully discovers the swamp ... as the "marsh arabs" used to say.

That may be a very long time, for I think we are going to see a lot more of such things happening in the years ahead. :eek: And with that, expect more deaths -- particularly of those who are generally perceived as minorities in America.

Count on it! Also count on minorities standing up for themselves by rightfully avenging the actions of those who would target them in the first place.

Well he may have egged the cops on but the response was out of proportion. Cops are paid to show judgment and to have good sense and thick skins. The point is the cops were never in any danger and used excessive force.

The nonsense of his web page etc is normal cop talk to say..."He was a bad guy and a troublemaker. We got him!" None of this is relevant because the cops had no way of knowing this at the time of the incident.

Frankly I am surprised at the level of support for the cops here and at other web sites. Sure he may have mouthed off to them but he only used words. Words cannot physically hurt you.

Frankly I am surprised at the level of support for the cops here and at other web sites. Sure he may have mouthed off to them but he only used words. Words cannot physically hurt you.

I'm not surprised. It's a "he", and he's "brown" and has a "foreign" name. Tack on that many will associate him with being Iranian and muslim ... and welcome to half of America's approach to such people. :eek: People might not want to admit that sentiment (if they even recognize it in themselves), but it's how it plays in public. Even those who dislike such nonsense in their hearts, keep quiet or even look to rationalize it. :eek:

That he's seen as a student/academic -- probably better off than average as well -- doesn't help either. He's not "the appple of the [average American] eye.". :eek:

yeah seriously, getting tasered is a great thought!

Any validation on that board that the person was even around LA at the time of that incident? Even for that board, Doormat's a relative newbie.Is there any validation that all of the other people who said they were eyewitnesses to the incident actually were? It is instructive for me to see that witness accounts that favor my interpretation are viewed as suspect, where yours are not questioned at all.
Well he may have egged the cops on but the response was out of proportion. Cops are paid to show judgment and to have good sense and thick skins. The point is the cops were never in any danger and used excessive force.

The nonsense of his web page etc is normal cop talk to say..."He was a bad guy and a troublemaker. We got him!" None of this is relevant because the cops had no way of knowing this at the time of the incident.

Frankly I am surprised at the level of support for the cops here and at other web sites. Sure he may have mouthed off to them but he only used words. Words cannot physically hurt you.He was not arrested for mouthing off at the cops. He was arrested for refusing to leave the library when he was told to leave. He clearly wanted to make as much of a spectacle as he could, and the witness accounts of those that are acquainted with him indicate that this is his M.O. I agree that the man's history is irrelevant with regard to the decisions the cops made. My bet is that they didn't know him, either. They acted on what they knew at the time, and their response was fully justified. Rather than wrestle with him, strike him with batons, carry him out of the building (risking injury to the officers), or allowing him to incite a rapidly-forming crowd into a riot situation, they used a less-lethal device that, despite GUWonder's claims, is both safe and effective. I didn't try to count how many times he was told to stand up. He clearly had the capacity to do so, as he came up very quickly when the current was applied. All he had to do was follow the instructions, but he doesn't like to do that. It appears that other cop-bashers here are of the same mind. Your choice, but know before you start that you're going to be playing hardball.

He was not arrested for mouthing off at the cops. He was arrested for refusing to leave the library when he was told to leave. He clearly wanted to make as much of a spectacle as he could, and the witness accounts of those that are acquainted with him indicate that this is his M.O. I agree that the man's history is irrelevant with regard to the decisions the cops made. My bet is that they didn't know him, either. They acted on what they knew at the time, and their response was fully justified. Rather than wrestle with him, strike him with batons, carry him out of the building (risking injury to the officers), or allowing him to incite a rapidly-forming crowd into a riot situation, they used a less-lethal device that, despite GUWonder's claims, is both safe and effective.

Thes3e cops are not little girls. They could have made it clear to him that he needed to leave now. If he didn't they could have dragged him out. If he fought them then, they could have used tasers. That is not what happened. They used violence innapropriately and people will not forget this: I do not think that any of the people in that crowd will shed a tear the next time a cop gets hurt now. The violence the cops are dishing out will always come back to hurt them. It is to both parties best interest to take a bit longer to diffuse any such situation: we all know that this kid did not need to be electrocuted: some people just think that they have to defend critiques of authority at all costs for some reason though.

Thes3e cops are not little girls. They could have made it clear to him that he needed to leave now. If he didn't they could have dragged him out. If he fought them then, they could have used tasers. That is not what happened. They used violence innapropriately and people will not forget this: I do not think that any of the people in that crowd will shed a tear the next time a cop gets hurt now. The violence the cops are dishing out will always come back to hurt them. It is to both parties best interest to take a bit longer to diffuse any such situation: we all know that this kid did not need to be electrocuted: some people just think that they have to defend critiques of authority at all costs for some reason though.


I'm playing the violin right now..... :rolleyes:

I'm playing the violin right now..... :rolleyes:

Yeah, whatever :rolleyes:

Laugh and joke about this if you want. You tell me when unjustified aggression has ever taught anyone a lesson. Israelis against Palestineans errr no. British and Northern Irish hmmm no. Americans and Vietnamese or Iraqis definitely not. White South Africans against native South Africans nah. This sort of agressive behavior will result in even more deep seated hate towards the aggressors than already exists. It is in their own best interests to act like intelligent adults and not braindead bullies.

We give cops the right to be mediators and solve problems when they need to be solved. This does not mean that they are the "boss" as some sympathizers on this thread have stated. It means they are supposed to keep order and solve problems in smart ways instead of adopting Rumsfeldian strategies to very very minor issues.

Yeah, whatever :rolleyes:

Laugh and joke about this if you want. You tell me when unjustified aggression has ever taught anyone a lesson. Israelis against Palestineans errr no. British and Northern Irish hmmm no. Americans and Vietnamese or Iraqis definitely not. White South Africans against native South Africans nah. This sort of agressive behavior will result in even more deep seated hate towards the aggressors than already exists. It is in their own best interests to act like intelligent adults and not braindead bullies.

We give cops the right to be mediators and solve problems when they need to be solved. This does not mean that they are the "boss" as some sympathizers on this thread have stated. It means they are supposed to keep order and solve problems in smart ways instead of adopting Rumsfeldian strategies to very very minor issues.

still playing it............. :cool:

Yeah, whatever :rolleyes:

Laugh and joke about this if you want. You tell me when unjustified aggression has ever taught anyone a lesson. Israelis against Palestineans errr no. British and Northern Irish hmmm no. Americans and Vietnamese or Iraqis definitely not. White South Africans against native South Africans nah. This sort of agressive behavior will result in even more deep seated hate towards the aggressors than already exists. It is in their own best interests to act like intelligent adults and not braindead bullies.

We give cops the right to be mediators and solve problems when they need to be solved. This does not mean that they are the "boss" as some sympathizers on this thread have stated. It means they are supposed to keep order and solve problems in smart ways instead of adopting Rumsfeldian strategies to very very minor issues.

Absolutely spot on. ^

He clearly wanted to make as much of a spectacle as he could,

Mind-reading.

and the witness accounts of those that are acquainted with him indicate that this is his M.O.

Mind-reading too required for that to have any validity.

People just love getting tasered repeatedly to make a spectacle as much as possible. :rolleyes:

They acted on what they knew at the time, and their response was fully justified. Rather than wrestle with him, strike him with batons, carry him out of the building (risking injury to the officers), or allowing him to incite a rapidly-forming crowd into a riot situation,

Fear of a riot situation at a library given the activities of the students there? :rolleyes: Might as well talk about police fear of being attacked by terrorists at a library. :rolleyes:

I didn't try to count how many times he was told to stand up. He clearly had the capacity to do so, as he came up very quickly when the current was applied.

What's clear to you is not clear to everyone else. People that have even been comatose and subsequently shocked by electric prods have been known to jump upon a jolt although being unable to previously. :eek: I suggest knowledge of the workings of the Naval Mechanics School and the like. ;)

All he had to do was follow the instructions, but he doesn't like to do that.

So you claim. That's not necessarily the case. Compliance doesn't always mean non-abuse. The police could have easily enough pushed him to the ground and cuffed him. Why was that not the option chosen? Perhaps because the police wanted to show who was in charge to one and all there? Who knows.

It appears that other cop-bashers here are of the same mind. Your choice, but know before you start that you're going to be playing hardball.

Do you imagine terrorists everywhere too? You clearly see more cop-bashers than there are. This is a criticism of police nonsense, where cuffing him and dragging him out was sufficient. ;)

Is there any validation that all of the other people who said they were eyewitnesses to the incident actually were? It is instructive for me to see that witness accounts that favor my interpretation are viewed as suspect, where yours are not questioned at all.

Some people actually cared to have eyewitnesses show others where they showed up on the camera footage linked above.

Rather than wrestle with him, strike him with batons, carry him out of the building (risking injury to the officers), or allowing him to incite a rapidly-forming crowd into a riot situation, they used a less-lethal device that, despite GUWonder's claims, is both safe and effective.

You are taking my words out of context to paint a picture of me but not by me. That's not surprising; but it's unrepresentative. ;) Tasers may not always be lethal devices, but they certainly are not always to be considered safe or even effective -- nor always used with the best of intentions in mind. Furthermore, tasers can kill and have killed before. In any event, I look forward to being on the receiving end of more of the disingenuine game playing with cause of death and "contributory factors" from the "non-lethal" weapon manufacturers and apologists for "toys" of a sort that have resulted in deaths already.

http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=5699282

It's also amusing -- but not surprising ;) -- to see a Taser lawsuit against medical examiners where there weapons are involved in the death:

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/16045340.htm

Taser is on a public relations campaign and is not pulling any punches to paint a picture that facilitates their weapon sales. The firm must be thrilled to have so many apologists. :eek:

Thes3e cops are not little girls. They could have made it clear to him that he needed to leave now. If he didn't they could have dragged him out. If he fought them then, they could have used tasers. That is not what happened. They used violence innapropriately and people will not forget this: I do not think that any of the people in that crowd will shed a tear the next time a cop gets hurt now. The violence the cops are dishing out will always come back to hurt them. It is to both parties best interest to take a bit longer to diffuse any such situation: we all know that this kid did not need to be electrocuted: some people just think that they have to defend critiques of authority at all costs for some reason though.

The taser is safer to the suspect than dragging him out of the building. He got tased, then left. Obviously the taser had the desired effect (compliance). Seems to be a win-win situation. He left without being dragged (and possibly injured) by the cops. The cops were able to remove him without risking injury to themselves.

I wonder if you know what your "rights" are. My experience, as a cop and a criminal justice professor, is that few people do. And, if I believe my rights have been violated, I will take it up in the appropriate forum.

This would be the forum where, as you said, the vast majority of cases result in no punishment for the officer? Yeah, I'll get right on that.

I don't feel that way at all. But I don't seem to be in situations where this has been a concern, and if I do perceive a violation, I'll address it in the forum put in place for that purpose.

Having been a cop I doubt you'd be in a similar situation - cops cut each other so much slack it's, for lack of a better word, criminal. A fomer college acquaintance became a reserver officer and has gotten out of so many speeding tickets it's disgusting.

I won't pretend that these things never happen, but I have yet to see a criminal justice system that was corrupt and condoning officer misconduct throughout the entire state structure.

Their assumption seems to be very similar to yours - the cop can't do anything wrong so it must be the citizen's fault. I will certainly see if I can get Willie Brown's time, but my guess is he wouldn't care since to get elected an attorney general needs to be endorsed by the police. And I'm pretty sure you guys wouldn't support someone who was cracking down on you for violating people's rights.

The majority of objections to uses of force by police I've seen here were from people with what I perceive to be an anti-authority agenda, and a deficit amount of knowledge in the technical areas under discussion.

I'm not anti-authority - I'm just against how cops seem to extrapolate from being cops to being above the law.


I know you're not "innocent," but if I (actually, the prosecutor) can't meet that burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then you're "not guilty." Big difference in terminology and concepts.

"Facts" that are observed don't carry a lot of weight with me (just look at how clueless most eye-witnesses are). And forgive me for applying logic to the legal system, but if the rule is "innocent until proven guilty" then how does not guilty != innocent? If you failed to prove it that's fine and the person wasn't found innocent because he didn't have to be - he was innocent (in the eyes of the law) all long.


You may not like the numbers, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong.

Without any data they are just barely a SWAG. I fail to see the relevance of made up statistics in supporting your argument.

You've described two encounters with police officers, and apparently extrapolate the state of the entire American law enforcement community from this (and you call my method of estimating the number of police misconduct cases a wild-a** guess?).

And here you go again making assumptions about my experience. You really should stop doing that. What makes you think that I recounted my only two experiences with cops? You know what happens when you assume...


I'm curious - how was this incident portrayed in court, and what was the outcome?

When I responded to the ticket the judge felt that the cop was doing what he thought was necessary to protect himself and it was just "too bad" even after the officer had been proven completely wrong. As for a civil case no one seemed to be interested. There's no evidence of any wrong doing.

Unfortuately there doesn't exist any technology to allow one to record all of one's interactions. Thus the only time the cops seem to be able to be held accountable for their gross misconduct is if someone else is able to capture video evidence.

So now the impact is that I don't trust the police. I'll talk politely to a cop but never ever trust one. The moment the conversation moves beyond the 'nice doggie' stage it's time to shut the hell up. It's certainly not true that all cops are corrupt and out to get you but it's probably safer to act that way.

And, just so as we're clear, in that situation, the police are "boss." This is a graphic example of what happens when someone resists this idea.

And I think that as long as the cops keep holding on to this idea (and why wouldn't they? Even the nice cops I've met like to power trip pretty often) then we'll have things like what happened in this case, or the case of the cops in LA punching that guy in the face over and over while they had them on the ground, and citizens will have very little recourse.

I should probably have let this one die a natural death, but I came across this first person account of the infamous UCLA Library incident today.

Sorry if I refuse to take seriously a debate on Tucker Max's board. This is a guy who claimed, in his stories, to drive the car of a chick he picked up through the window of a donut shop and then run away and while the users of his board are entertaining I don't find them that compelling.

. They could have made it clear to him that he needed to leave now. If he didn't they could have dragged him out.

So you'd prefer officers to "drag" a suspect out, potentially incurring injuries to themselves, and putting them out on workers comp? Would they have to call for additional assistance to do this dragging, or mutual aid, if the suspect is not cooperative and there is a crowd?

This may not be the best solution.

I've seen many an officer retire on injuries sustained during arrests (backs, knees, shoulders). The taser would seem to avoid the potential for officers getting hurt ( and I do believe copwriter discussed this in some detail earlier).

Tom in London

So you'd prefer officers to "drag" a suspect out, potentially incurring injuries to themselves,

yes.

and putting them out on workers comp?

aww poor babies :rolleyes: You are telling me that three grown men can't drag a person out of a building? If the person starts fighting them, then maybe they can think about other tactics.

This might make them reconsider their agressive tactics. Just as British police always stand the risk of being shot because they don't carry guns. American police would have to adapt to the situation. The British strategy definitely eliminates all improper shootings perpetrated by normal non-gun carrying cops.



I've seen many an officer retire on injuries sustained during arrests (backs, knees, shoulders). The taser would seem to avoid the potential for officers getting hurt ( and I do believe copwriter discussed this in some detail earlier).


Yes, so what? Nuking Iraq woud reduce the number of US troops that would get hurt. This sort of logic is insane.

We cannot nuke a country to protect American troops and we cannot go around electrocuting people to stop cops from having backaches :rolleyes:

Just like soldiers, cops know what they are getting into when they sign up. If they wanted a job with no risk of injury they should pick a different career.

If they wanted a job with no risk of injury they should pick a different career.

Actually, they receive substantial training to avoid injury, and in the agency I worked for that included taser training and potato gun training (it shot a projectile to knock someone down). There's also extensive written policy about the use of these items, as well as a detailed firearms policy. Officers also "hog-tied" combative suspects so they would not injure themselves, officers, or damage the police vehicle in transit.

Dragging someone that does not want to be dragged has the potential for causing injuries to both officers and the suspect. A taser avoids that scenario even coming into play (as would the suspect complying and walking out of the building--certainly an easy way to resolve the whole thing).

So if you ran the police department, you would just encourage officers to drag non-complying suspects rather than use tools they have been provided training on and have written policy on? As the officers start dropping with injuries, there might not be much of a police department left.

So if you ran the police department, you would just encourage officers to drag non-complying suspects rather than use tools they have been provided training on and have written policy on? As the officers start dropping with injuries, there might not be much of a police department left.

I would have my officers talk to someone in that situation. Explain to them they had to leave and were welcome to discuss with the officers outside of the library about whatever the issue maybe. The officers could politely warn the 'suspect' that if he did not leave they would have to carry him out. If matters reached that point, the officers could call reinforcements so that 4 officers could carry him out. If he resisted then or was extremely overweight call 2 more officers while keeping an eye on him to see that he is not harming anything or anyone. If he then resists in a violent manner e.g. puching cops, then they can taser him.

Honestly, we all know this is what would happen anyway if the "suspect" were a sorority girl.

Your argument hold no water whatsoever. Electrocute first, ask questions later; all so that cops don't hurt their fragile little knees :rolleyes:

Your argument hold no water whatsoever. Electrocute first, ask questions later; all so that cops don't hurt their fragile little knees :rolleyes:

Do you really not understand that using a taser instead of dragging someone is also designed to prevent injury to the suspect? Or are you just ignoring that point to make your rant sound better?

Do you really not understand that using a taser instead of dragging someone is also designed to prevent injury to the suspect? Or are you just ignoring that point to make your rant sound better?

You would rather be electrocuted than carried to a police car? :rolleyes: of course you would.

That is such a silly argument that you are making. If you inject a sedative into a suspects veins it might also cause less damage. What exactly is your point? It remains that electrocution is a very violent, disturbing, and aggressive act: one that most people do not want to happen to them. Find me anyone that would rather be electrocuted than carried or dragged.

You would rather be electrocuted than carried to a police car? :rolleyes: of course you would.

That is such a silly argument that you are making. If you inject a sedative into a suspects veins it might also cause less damage. What exactly is your point? It remains that electrocution is a very violent, disturbing, and aggressive act: one that most people do not want to happen to them. Find me anyone that would rather be electrocuted than carried or dragged.

You're distorting the point. It's not that the suspect would prefer to be tased at the time (in fact the suspect would probably rather be left alone, but that's not reasonable). The point is that there is less risk of injury to a suspect if they recieve a slight electric charge (which by the way is not the same thing as "electrocution") than if they were dragged out to a police car.

You say that electrocution is "very violent, disturbing, and agressive". This statement is wrong for 2 reasons:

1. The use of a taser is not electrocution.
2. The adjectives you used are opinion based.

You're distorting the point. It's not that the suspect would prefer to be tased at the time (in fact the suspect would probably rather be left alone, but that's not reasonable). The point is that there is less risk of injury to a suspect if they recieve a slight electric charge (which by the way is not the same thing as "electrocution") than if they were dragged out to a police car.

You say that electrocution is "very violent, disturbing, and agressive". This statement is wrong for 2 reasons:

1. The use of a taser is not electrocution.
2. The adjectives you used are opinion based.

No, you are distorting the point and the adjectives you are using are equally as opinion based. Neither of us offer an objective channel in pure, unrefined 'truth.'

As I have clearly stated, there is much less risk to the subject if the police would have treated him not as an Iranian man, but instead as they would a blond sorority girl.

from wikipedia:
The recipient is immobilized via two metal probes (darts) connected via metal wires from the stun gun usually penetrating the human skin, and superficial muscle. The recipient that is 'connected' to a stun gun feels great pain and can be momentarily paralyzed (only so long as there is an electrical current being applied) because his muscles are receiving electrical 'shock'. The (relatively) low electric current must be pushed by (relatively) high voltage to overcome the electrical resistance of the human body. The resultant 'shock' is caused by muscles twitching uncontrollably, appearing as muscle spasms. However, because the amount of current is relatively low, there is considered to be a 'margin' of safety by a number of medical experts upon usage on humans.

please do not pretend it is not electrocution. Why don't you consult a dictionary as to what electrocution means.

You're distorting the point. It's not that the suspect would prefer to be tased at the time (in fact the suspect would probably rather be left alone, but that's not reasonable). The point is that there is less risk of injury to a suspect if they recieve a slight electric charge (which by the way is not the same thing as "electrocution") than if they were dragged out to a police car.

You say that electrocution is "very violent, disturbing, and agressive". This statement is wrong for 2 reasons:

1. The use of a taser is not electrocution.
2. The adjectives you used are opinion based.

Is it me or is the above post reminiscent of a larger phenomenon?

The U.S. government states it does not torture those they illegally hold prisoner, yet photographic evidence and testimonies force them to admit in the next breath that their prisoners are water boarded, soaked with cold water and left to the elements in the middle of December, hog tied for days on end, have menses-soaked towels rubbed across their faces, set on by military dogs until they defacate or urinate, forced to perform sex acts on other prisoners while americans watch and get their jollies, kicked and beaten (to a pulp or to death in some cases) by jack booted thugs, etc, etc. "It's not torture" the spokespigs say.

The use of a taser is not electrocution? Riiiiiiiiiight!

I think the main problem is that the cops are getting lazy in using these "non-lethal" methods of force to replace good police work. A good (in the sense of skilled) cop can often assert their authority with just the threat of force (and often a very subtle threat at that). However I think things like tasers make the cops lazy. If the guy at UCLA was refusing to get up then that's non-violent resistance. Tasering him for that is just lame, but I'm sure some folks find it fine - the same folks who (wrongly) thought dabbing pepper spray in the eyes of non-violent protestors was fine.

(That being said those folks only got $1. So even when the cops are admittedly wrong they don't get punished. And then folks like copwriter wonder why some of us have issues with the police...)

No, you are distorting the point and the adjectives you are using are equally as opinion based. Neither of us offer an objective channel in pure, unrefined 'truth.'


Too bad I didn't use any adjectives, except to repeat yours.


As I have clearly stated, there is much less risk to the subject if the police would have treated him not as an Iranian man, but instead as they would a blond sorority girl.


You have any facts, or proof for your race card theory, or just more speculation?


from wikipedia:
<filler>
please do not pretend it is not electrocution. Why don't you consult a dictionary as to what electrocution means.

Hook, line, and sinker buddy.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source e·lec·tro·cute (-lktr-kyt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. e·lec·tro·cut·ed, e·lec·tro·cut·ing, e·lec·tro·cutes
To kill with electricity: a worker who was electrocuted by a high-tension wire.
To execute (a condemned prisoner) by means of electricity.


Foot, meet mouth :D Even your "source" Wikipedia doesn't call tasering "electrocution"

The use of a taser is not electrocution? Riiiiiiiiiight!

Right indeed! Please see definition of "electrocution" in above post ;)

If you inject a sedative into a suspects veins it might also cause less damage.

We don't train police on injecting sedatives. We do train them on the use of tasers. Does the police department in your city have tasers? Have you vented to city officials in person or in writing?

Tasering him for that is just lame, but I'm sure some folks find it fine - the same folks who (wrongly) thought dabbing pepper spray in the eyes of non-violent protestors was fine.

The only time I've ever heard of pepper spray being dabbed in the eyes was in Humboldt County in Northern California a few years ago (during logging protests, I believe). Are you saying this is a widespread practice? I've only seen one report, where, on the other hand, surely tasers have been used thouands of times. I'm not sure you can make a comparison of one to the other. Dabbing pepper spray in someone's eyes is not a common police practice, while a taser is a piece of issued equipment that is regularly used.

The only time I've ever heard of pepper spray being dabbed in the eyes was in Humboldt County in Northern California a few years ago (during logging protests, I believe). Are you saying this is a widespread practice?

I know it's not done that anymore because the guys in Humboldt sued and eventually won their case. However the folks in California who decided police standards at one time found pepper spray a good idea for crowd control even with folks who are passively resisting - in fact they decided there is no difference between passive resistance and active resistance. I just find that moderately insane...

However the folks in California who decided police standards at one time found pepper spray a good idea for crowd control even with folks who are passively resisting - in fact they decided there is no difference between passive resistance and active resistance. I just find that moderately insane...

Sure, what's wrong with using pepper spray to break up a crowd? It does tend to work quite effectively to disperse groups of people.

Sure, what's wrong with using pepper spray to break up a crowd? It does tend to work quite effectively to disperse groups of people.

I would suggest grenades; they work oh so much better :rolleyes:

I would suggest grenades; they work oh so much better :rolleyes:

I noticed you didn't respond after I called you on the definition of "electrocution". Selective reading? ;)

Swampy wants to know why it was necessary to taser the guy more than once. Maybe after a single taser the guy would have voluntarily walked out on his own.

---

Swampy also wonders why the outraged crowd did not call 911 and demand that the state police respond to the disturbance. The university law enforcement people will respect the state police, and if there is an issue with approriate response, fresh eyes and different trianing on the scene is one way to help resolve it.

Hopefully, this tazer policy "thread of news" will be read by any foreigner who wants to come. Maybe now they will stay home. ^

Hopefully, this tazer policy "thread of news" will be read by any foreigner who wants to come. Maybe now they will stay home. ^


Wow we can agree on something :)

Absolutely, all foreigners should avoid the only country that not-only has an excessively violent police force (although lots of other countries such as Mexico, Israel, North Korea do this too) but also will deny you habeas corpus.

When the U.S. decides to join the ranks of other countries that respect basic human freedoms and rights then please come and see the many wonderful things that are over here. However, until then think very carefully before booking your flights...

....

When the U.S. decides to join the ranks of other countries that respect basic human freedoms and rights then please come and see the many wonderful things that are over here. However, until then think very carefully before booking your flights... Don't even do it then... remember, we allow our citizens to own hand guns and <gasp> civil discourse.....

Stay home.

Don't even do it then... remember, we allow our citizens to own hand guns and <gasp> civil discourse.....

Stay home.

huh :confused:

Don't even do it then... remember, we allow our citizens to own hand guns and <gasp> civil discourse.....

I've always wondered if there was some logic to the idea that if everyone was armed then discourse would be a lot more civil. :)

I've always wondered if there was some logic to the idea that if everyone was armed then discourse would be a lot more civil. :)

The US might not be the best example to prove your point :D

When the U.S. decides to join the ranks of other countries that respect basic human freedoms and rights then please come and see the many wonderful things that are over here. However, until then think very carefully before booking your flights...Oh, please, that was lifted straight from every post on Daily KOS and MyDD. You're in charge now, lighten up and raise taxes or something.

Don't even do it then... remember, we allow our citizens to own hand guns and <gasp> civil discourse.....

Stay home.How Heinleinesque of you.

I would never pull my gun on someone like that - they believe in gun control and are unarmed. :D

Oh, please, that was lifted straight from every post on Daily KOS and MyDD.

No idea what on earth you are talking about :confused: :rolleyes:

You're in charge now

In charge of what exactly :confused:


raise taxes or something.

On who and for what reason?


Please try and make a bit more sense next time, or is perhaps the wonderful thought of getting to taser people who are in libraries without IDs getting to your head?

I noticed you didn't respond after I called you on the definition of "electrocution". Selective reading? ;)

A lot of posts today in this thread martian, but still no response. Is it that hard to admit you were wrong, and that tasering someone is not "electrocution".

I have noticed that the "electrocution" talk has subsided and has been replaced with the tired old, "USA is excessively violent" argument again ;)

A lot of posts today in this thread martian, but still no response. Is it that hard to admit you were wrong, and that tasering someone is not "electrocution".


Yes you are right - I was wrong. I do have a mistaken understanding of the term electrocution. It seems to mean death by electric shock. I have always took it to mean electric shock. Still does not change what taser guns do: it remains an excrutiating experience.


I have noticed that the "electrocution" talk has subsided and has been replaced with the tired old, "USA is excessively violent" argument again ;)

What is apparently clear to me is that criticism really upsets people for some reason. You should celebrate and embrace criticism. How else can we make this country better if we cannot recognize its failings? Sticking your head in the sand and chanting "USA! USA! USA!" is not doing anyone any good.

There are some serious undeniable problems related to violence in this country. It baffles me that instead of recognizing them and talking about efficient solutions, some people attack the person making the inital criticism.

There are some serious undeniable problems related to violence in this country.

Indeed there are, and much of that violence involves knives, guns, and other weapons (clubs, hammers, sticks, just about anything you can think of). It's good policy to equip local police with the tools they need to deal with a sometimes violent clientele. That equipment includes tasers, and a strict written policy to go along with its use so they are not abused.

I asked you earlier, and you did not respond, as to whether your local police use tasers, and, seeing how the taser issue does bother you, whether you have complained in person or in writing to local authorities. Does your local PD use tasers? Have you complained about their use at the local level?

Swampy also wonders why the outraged crowd did not call 911 and demand that the state police respond to the disturbance.

We no longer have the California State Police here. That agency previously existed to patrol the California Aqueduct, as well as to provide security to state officials, and state owned buildings. It was incorporated into the CHP a few years ago. I took a class with their chief of police about 20 years back.

The University of California Police are autonomous, just as a local PD would be. If they need assistance, they are free to invoke mutual aid at the county level and draw from a wealth of agencies that can immediately respond within the county, including CHP. You, as a citizen/taxpayer, though, would not be able to call the CHP and ask them to respond onto University grounds because you were not satisfied with the agency in charge there. The request would need to come from UCPD or the county sheriff.

Is it that hard to admit you were wrong, and that tasering someone is not "electrocution".

I have noticed that the "electrocution" talk has subsided and has been replaced with the tired old, "USA is excessively violent" argument again ;)

While elctrocution has generally been just as the etymology suggests (i.e., a synthesis of electro/electric + execution), electrocution is used connotatively to refer to being seriously shocked by non-naturally occurring electricity that could potentially result in the loss of life or tissue damage.

Even with the electric chair, some who have been "electrocuted" weren't dead even after the electrocution was initiated and current was sent through the body. In other words, an "electrocution" need not necessarily result in immediate death to be popularly understood to be (potential) electrocution.

Stop the bus....

Why are we limiting this warning to people who want to visit?

From what I understand, there are a couple of people who are actually applying for student visas and <gasp> legal immigration status. (They want to move here, permanently) I also understand that there are one or two people that try to enter this country without legal status (note to the kumbaya crowd, I did not call them illegal immigrants).

Where are you dedicated warning issuers who care so much on these people?

You really should not be limiting your warnings to holiday and business travelers.

Get the word out! Spread your warnings to everyone who wants to enter the US, for any and all reasons!

I asked you earlier, and you did not respond, as to whether your local police use tasers, and, seeing how the taser issue does bother you, whether you have complained in person or in writing to local authorities. Does your local PD use tasers? Have you complained about their use at the local level?

This is a public Internet forum and some people decide to reveal more personal info than others. This is not a topic I have any interest in discussing with you. But, if it makes you sleep better at night, I am an active participant in my community discussion. Keep this discussion on topic please.

Where are you dedicated warning issuers who care so much on these people?



who are these dedicated warning issuers? :confused: :rolleyes:

Stop the bus....

Why are we limiting this warning to people who want to visit?

From what I understand, there are a couple of people who are actually applying for student visas and <gasp> legal immigration status. (They want to move here, permanently) I also understand that there are one or two people that try to enter this country without legal status (note to the kumbaya crowd, I did not call them illegal immigrants).

Where are you dedicated warning issuers who care so much on these people?

You really should not be limiting your warnings to holiday and business travelers.

Get the word out! Spread your warnings to everyone who wants to enter the US, for any and all reasons!

It is really funny that some people :rolleyes: manage to get their panties in such a twist at the slightest hint of criticism. It is sort of like some little sensitive kids I know that start crying unless you tell them what they did was perfect; just perfect :D


Criticsm is good for you. Suck it up really! While I think it is quite amusing, people such as :rolleyes: sticking their heads in the sand and chanting USA! USA! USA! are not going to help people improve this country ;)

Indeed there are, and much of that violence involves knives, guns, and other weapons (clubs, hammers, sticks, just about anything you can think of). It's good policy to equip local police with the tools they need to deal with a sometimes violent clientele. That equipment includes tasers, and a strict written policy to go along with its use so they are not abused.



You are saying that this guy was being violent? :confused: Nothing I have read suggests that he did anything remotely violent :confused:

I even watched faux news to see how they would be able to spin this story into some sort of insane tirade against "Islamofascists" :D and they weren't even able to state that he did anything violent.

This is not a topic I have any interest in discussing with you.

Guess that will end my participation in this thread.

Guess that will end my participation in this thread.


Try quoting the whole paragraph next time: context is important to some people ;)

Stop the bus....

Why are we limiting this warning to people who want to visit?

From what I understand, there are a couple of people who are actually applying for student visas and <gasp> legal immigration status. (They want to move here, permanently) I also understand that there are one or two people that try to enter this country without legal status (note to the kumbaya crowd, I did not call them illegal immigrants).

Where are you dedicated warning issuers who care so much on these people?

You really should not be limiting your warnings to holiday and business travelers.

Get the word out! Spread your warnings to everyone who wants to enter the US, for any and all reasons!

I think those wishing to live here shoud keep coming despite the use of torture reserved for dark skinned minorities. Besides, they WILL become the majority in YOUR lifetime and change this country from one run by nazi racists (ehem) into something to be proud of. Now that would be satifying.

Ola!

I'm probably going to regret this, but I came across a recent medical/academic article on TASER use that I thought some of you might find interesting. My take on this is that the authors had no political agenda. I don't agree with all of their statements, but then I am not qualified to evaluate their work from a medical perspective:

Taser Use in Restraint-Related Deaths
Authors: Strote, Jared1; Range Hutson, H.2
Source: Prehospital Emergency Care, Volume 10, Number 4, October-December 2006, pp. 447-450(4)
Publisher: Taylor and Francis Ltd


Abstract:
Objective . The Taser is an electric weapon capable of releasing significant amounts of electricity in rapid pulses, causing uncontrollable muscle contraction. Use of this weapon has dramatically increased over the past decade, and it is now commonly used by law enforcement officers nationwide. Emergency medical services providers are, likewise, seeing more patients who have recently been subjected to application of a Taser. We examined the autopsy reports of patients who died after application of a Taser in an attempt to identify high-risk interactions. Methods . This is a case series of Taser-related deaths. Fatalities occurring over four years beginning in January 2001 were identified through an Internet search, and autopsy reports were requested. Reports were analyzed for patient demographics, preexisting cardiac disease, toxicology, evidence of excited delirium, restraint techniques used, and listed cause of death. Results . Of 75 cases identified, 37 (49.3%) had autopsy reports available for review. All cases involved men, with ages ranging from 18 to 50 years. Cardiovascular disease was found in 54.1%. Illegal substance use was found on toxicology screening for 78.4%; within that group, 86.2% were found to have been using stimulants. A diagnosis of excited delirium was given for 75.7% of the cases. Use of a Taser was considered a potential or contributory cause of death in 27%. Conclusions . This is the largest review of Taser-related fatalities reported in the medical literature. The findings are consistent with prior studies, suggesting a high frequency of restraint-related and excited delirium-related fatalities. Key words: emergency medical services; restraint; physical; fatal outcome; law enforcement.
Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1080/10903120600884863
Affiliations: 1: Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA 2: Department of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA