Teen Dies After Officers Use Taser to Subdue Him

[JW Frogen]

Drugs, wild sex and booze are kinda a gray area.

Sort of like Ghengus Khan.

 

[Shogun]

I will also let them know that you approve of the collapsible baton useage.

I see you failed reading comprehension. When a sentence is begun with IF then it indicates a possibility. Unfortunately I know of no way to be clearer than
IF a baton is shown to be less lethal than a Tazer
THEN it should be used instead of the Tazer.

I suppose a semiliterate supporter of a police state cannot be expected to understand logic or common English language constructions.

As to the idiot who called the deceased teen a "criminal" - unless he has a conviction on his record he can never be a criminal. He'll never be tried, and so by the law he won't be convicted of any crime. Really the police go break up a fight between three guys at a housing project (that is where effectively the sort of place they were staying, right) and one is too wound up, perhaps because the other two had been double teaming him, to immediately kowtow and suddenly he MUST be the bad guy to excuse the police officer who killed him. I recall a case I read of from the 70's in Dallas where a 16 year old boy was convicted as an adult for murder because he shot a 17 year old boy to prevent said 17 year old from knifing his 14 year old brother. Apparently defending your own kin against armed assault is not permitted, but any time a guy with a badge shoots an unarmed child, well that sort of thing happens and blah, blah, blah

Darn I feel really used after I tried to convince someone that Fascism did not exist in 21st century America. You guys make that point painfully clear.

You are simply wrong. RESISTING ARREST IS A FUCKING CRIME. A crack dealer who gets shot is still a dead fucking criminal.

hey, here's an idea... why don't you go put on a fucking police uniform and walk in their risky shoes for a while before lecturing someone about how police SHOULD have acted.

If you think the OP is fascism then you, sir, are exactly the kind of fuckwad, monkey brained idiot that gives my side of the political spectrum a farcical punchline.


bottom line, don't become aggressive with cops. Period. No "he was just too wound up" excuses necessary.

 

[The Rabbi]

All I know is it is being used far too often.

Really? How often should it be used?

 

[Charles Stucker]

You are simply wrong. RESISTING ARREST IS A FUCKING CRIME. A crack dealer who gets shot is still a dead fucking criminal.

So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.
Odd, I'm almost certain that crack originated in the latter half of the 20th century. I know that the police killed people before then, so how were they all crack dealers?
Hurry along to your meeting with Mr Mption.

Oh and excellent use of gratuitous obscenities, it really strengthens your argument. A lot.

 

[Care4all]

the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!

 

[Single Dad]

the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!

Please quote these "rules of use" to which you refer and tell us exactly how they need to be changed. Provide links.

 

[Single Dad]

Heh heh heh......

Take a look at the "ads By Google" line in the upper banner area. It has various taser advertisements.

 

[Care4all]

Heh heh heh......

Take a look at the "ads By Google" line in the upper banner area. It has various taser advertisements.

every word we type is being watched, thus the taser ads.... that's what google ''spiders'' do...

kinda scary....imo....like big brother is watching, only it is Google and other spybots....spiders.

 

[Shogun]

You are simply wrong. RESISTING ARREST IS A FUCKING CRIME. A crack dealer who gets shot is still a dead fucking criminal.

So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.
Odd, I'm almost certain that crack originated in the latter half of the 20th century. I know that the police killed people before then, so how were they all crack dealers?
Hurry along to your meeting with Mr Mption.

Oh and excellent use of gratuitous obscenities, it really strengthens your argument. A lot.

I'm pointing out that the nomenclature of criminal doesn't hinge on being dubbed so by a judge. Again, a crack dealer who dies while confronting the police is still a criminal. This is what we call a fact. Another FACT at play here is that these cops didn't break any laws when doing their job to enforce the law. Your opinion of tazers mean exactly two things: jack and shit. When you have an example of actual abuse by police feel free to drop on by and spread your shit flavored opinion in the thread again. After all, why not crucify ALL cops just because, historically, SOME cops have killed? Enjoying that drama with your queen?

hey, noobtoast. welcome to USMB. Clearly, you are meant to be here.

 

[Care4all]

You are simply wrong. RESISTING ARREST IS A FUCKING CRIME. A crack dealer who gets shot is still a dead fucking criminal.

So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.
Odd, I'm almost certain that crack originated in the latter half of the 20th century. I know that the police killed people before then, so how were they all crack dealers?
Hurry along to your meeting with Mr Mption.

Oh and excellent use of gratuitous obscenities, it really strengthens your argument. A lot.

I'm pointing out that the nomenclature of criminal doesn't hinge on being dubbed so by a judge. Again, a crack dealer who dies while confronting the police is still a criminal. This is what we call a fact. Another FACT at play here is that these cops didn't break any laws when doing their job to enforce the law. Your opinion of tazers mean exactly two things: jack and shit. When you have an example of actual abuse by police feel free to drop on by and spread your shit flavored opinion in the thread again. After all, why not crucify ALL cops just because, historically, SOME cops have killed? Enjoying that drama with your queen?

hey, noobtoast. welcome to USMB. Clearly, you are meant to be here.

are people criminals before they have a fair trial before a jury of their peers and a conviction in a court of law shogun? I thought we were innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in this great country of ours?

 

[Shogun]

the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!

eh fuckit.. let's nix tazers so that cops can shoot raging offenders in the head with their sidearm! Cops are impervious, you know. Nothing like a little monday morning quarterbacking from a comfortable chair after the fact to REALLY shed light on the topic.



Hey, maybe we should expect cops to say pretty please when faced with violence criminals the next time. Why spare a good cop when a violent thug's life is at stake, right?

 

[Shogun]

So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.
Odd, I'm almost certain that crack originated in the latter half of the 20th century. I know that the police killed people before then, so how were they all crack dealers?
Hurry along to your meeting with Mr Mption.

Oh and excellent use of gratuitous obscenities, it really strengthens your argument. A lot.

I'm pointing out that the nomenclature of criminal doesn't hinge on being dubbed so by a judge. Again, a crack dealer who dies while confronting the police is still a criminal. This is what we call a fact. Another FACT at play here is that these cops didn't break any laws when doing their job to enforce the law. Your opinion of tazers mean exactly two things: jack and shit. When you have an example of actual abuse by police feel free to drop on by and spread your shit flavored opinion in the thread again. After all, why not crucify ALL cops just because, historically, SOME cops have killed? Enjoying that drama with your queen?

hey, noobtoast. welcome to USMB. Clearly, you are meant to be here.

are people criminals before they have a fair trial before a jury of their peers and a conviction in a court of law shogun? I thought we were innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in this great country of ours?

It depends on how you are acting in front of a cop. If said dude was compliant and CHARGED then he could have his day in court. If he violently refuses arrest then cops can use necessary force up to and including killing a raging, violent criminal.


Next time you think we are innocent until proven guilty go point a gun at a cop and tell him all about your day in court.

 

[CryGlennCry]

the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!

eh fuckit.. let's nix tazers so that cops can shoot raging offenders in the head with their sidearm! Cops are impervious, you know. Nothing like a little monday morning quarterbacking from a comfortable chair after the fact to REALLY shed light on the topic.



Hey, maybe we should expect cops to say pretty please when faced with violence criminals the next time. Why spare a good cop when a violent thug's life is at stake, right?

It's as if you are impervious to logic!
Did you not see any of those vids of "raging", "dangerous" perps getting tasered by cops in "obvious peril"?
I think the police should have the benefit of the doubt, because they are in tense, unpredictable, and truly dangerous situations every day.
BUT, when the cops are shown to be abusing their power the punishment should be severe.
And all the clips here show real abuse.

 

[eagleseven]

are people criminals before they have a fair trial before a jury of their peers and a conviction in a court of law shogun? I thought we were innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in this great country of ours?

If a policeman believes you are endangering his personal safety or life, he is authorized to use force to subdue/kill you. Resisting arrest endangers the officers safety.

Judges and juries have little compassion for those who resist arrest. If you are under arrest, no matter how innocent, do everything the officer says, save talking. If you are suspect, talking to the police never helps.

The police can arrest you and force you into their car/local jail, but they cannot legally force you to talk outside of a courtroom.

 

[Charles Stucker]

If a policeman believes you are endangering his personal safety or life, he is authorized to use force to subdue/kill you. Resisting arrest endangers the officers safety.

Which is a convenient excuse when someone dies as a result of police action.
I could have sworn the Protect and Serve meant ME the civilian, not the police officer.

I'm going to suggest a situation for all the "walk a mile in his shoes people"
Not to walk in an officer's shoes, but instead the innocent victim's

You are driving home from a late day at work. You have had a long day and are tired and irritable. You stopped at a convenience store to make a purchase, then drove on your way. The bulb which illuminates your rear license plate just burned out.
A police officer is sitting watching traffic. He has had a long day and is tired and irritable. He notices your light out and pulls you over for a citation. While running your plates he gets a notice of a crime committed with a suspect fleeing in a car matching the one you drive. He tells you to get out and put your hands on the hood of your car. Just to be safe, he readies his taser, since he can see you have no gun in your hands on the wheel. You get out and snap off an angry comment about ticket quotas. Emboldened by the general consensus that anyone shot by an officer is guilty, he tasers you just because he is irate. You are then arrested and charged with both resisting arrest AND the other crime which you absolutely did not commit. Unfortunately your counsel tells you the case is pretty cut and dried; you will be found guilty. Meanwhile your name has been spread in the paper; "Local Man subdued by Brave officer after committing heinous felony." You fight the case, but the damning evidence "He had to taser you to subdue you" convinces the jury.

I don't know about any of YOU, but for me that sort of scenario is decidedly unpalatable.

 

[Shogun]

the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!

eh fuckit.. let's nix tazers so that cops can shoot raging offenders in the head with their sidearm! Cops are impervious, you know. Nothing like a little monday morning quarterbacking from a comfortable chair after the fact to REALLY shed light on the topic.



Hey, maybe we should expect cops to say pretty please when faced with violence criminals the next time. Why spare a good cop when a violent thug's life is at stake, right?

It's as if you are impervious to logic!
Did you not see any of those vids of "raging", "dangerous" perps getting tasered by cops in "obvious peril"?
I think the police should have the benefit of the doubt, because they are in tense, unpredictable, and truly dangerous situations every day.
BUT, when the cops are shown to be abusing their power the punishment should be severe.
And all the clips here show real abuse.

that may be your opinion from the cozy perspective of your computer throne but, alas, such is not the standard by which the police operate. Did the guy resist arrest? If you can't say NO then you have no real point to make. You can't predict what may or may not have happened were they not tazed. Sure, it's easy to insist they are innocent AFTER the fact. But, during the event it's a whole different story.

 

[Shogun]

If a policeman believes you are endangering his personal safety or life, he is authorized to use force to subdue/kill you. Resisting arrest endangers the officers safety.

Which is a convenient excuse when someone dies as a result of police action.
I could have sworn the Protect and Serve meant ME the civilian, not the police officer.

I'm going to suggest a situation for all the "walk a mile in his shoes people"
Not to walk in an officer's shoes, but instead the innocent victim's

You are driving home from a late day at work. You have had a long day and are tired and irritable. You stopped at a convenience store to make a purchase, then drove on your way. The bulb which illuminates your rear license plate just burned out.
A police officer is sitting watching traffic. He has had a long day and is tired and irritable. He notices your light out and pulls you over for a citation. While running your plates he gets a notice of a crime committed with a suspect fleeing in a car matching the one you drive. He tells you to get out and put your hands on the hood of your car. Just to be safe, he readies his taser, since he can see you have no gun in your hands on the wheel. You get out and snap off an angry comment about ticket quotas. Emboldened by the general consensus that anyone shot by an officer is guilty, he tasers you just because he is irate. You are then arrested and charged with both resisting arrest AND the other crime which you absolutely did not commit. Unfortunately your counsel tells you the case is pretty cut and dried; you will be found guilty. Meanwhile your name has been spread in the paper; "Local Man subdued by Brave officer after committing heinous felony." You fight the case, but the damning evidence "He had to taser you to subdue you" convinces the jury.

I don't know about any of YOU, but for me that sort of scenario is decidedly unpalatable.

Well, I guess you are fucking wrong again now, aren't ya? So, let me get this strait... COPS should wantonly throw themselves in front for YOUR safety but they don't have a reason to expect as much safety precautions as possible on THEIR job? Figures.




and, you silly fucking hypothetical is just that: a silly fucking hypothetical. Let me adjust your silly fucking hypothetical just a bit:


You are a fucking gangster thug wannabe who happens to have a glock 9mm under the seat. The cop doesn't know about this. You reach under your seat and he tasez your lucky ass instead of shooting you in the fucking head. You get to live. End of story.



You must not be familiar with the aftermath of crimes in progress if you think every cop in the county should die before subjecting you to lethal force if necessary. I am not at a loss for examples of dead criminals killed by cops before they could get to court. Maybe you can climb on down from your cross and go find an ACTUAL instance of police abuse, chicken little.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Let me adjust your silly fucking hypothetical just a bit:


You are a fucking gangster thug wannabe who happens to have a glock 9mm under the seat. The cop doesn't know about this. You reach under your seat and he tasez your lucky ass instead of shooting you in the fucking head. You get to live. End of story.

You really are clueless aren't you. The police tasered a young man. He died.
He had neither gun nor knife, nor any other weapon from all I have seen. And yet you blindly assert that this is the exact same thing as tasering a thug armed with a gun.

Oh, and the difference between my hypothetical and yours;
In mine, anyone who ever works late and drives a car could put themselves in the place suggested. In yours, those of us who are not thugs with Glock 9mm pistols can't envision ourselves in such a situation. Glad to have the update that you can see yourself as a thug easier than an honest citizen, it will remind me the sort of person you are.
I must however applaud your willingness to be tasered or shot the next time you pull your gun to commit one of your, presumably many, crimes.

 

[CryGlennCry]

that may be your opinion from the cozy perspective of your computer throne but, alas, such is not the standard by which the police operate. Did the guy resist arrest? If you can't say NO then you have no real point to make. You can't predict what may or may not have happened were they not tazed. Sure, it's easy to insist they are innocent AFTER the fact. But, during the event it's a whole different story.

Once again, I'm not saying every case is abuse.
But in THOSE CLIPS do you actually believe THOSE people needed to be tasered?
If you don't want to talk about hypothetics, let's talk specifically.

 

[Shogun]

Let me adjust your silly fucking hypothetical just a bit:


You are a fucking gangster thug wannabe who happens to have a glock 9mm under the seat. The cop doesn't know about this. You reach under your seat and he tasez your lucky ass instead of shooting you in the fucking head. You get to live. End of story.

You really are clueless aren't you. The police tasered a young man. He died.
He had neither gun nor knife, nor any other weapon from all I have seen. And yet you blindly assert that this is the exact same thing as tasering a thug armed with a gun.

Oh, and the difference between my hypothetical and yours;
In mine, anyone who ever works late and drives a car could put themselves in the place suggested. In yours, those of us who are not thugs with Glock 9mm pistols can't envision ourselves in such a situation. Glad to have the update that you can see yourself as a thug easier than an honest citizen, it will remind me the sort of person you are.
I must however applaud your willingness to be tasered or shot the next time you pull your gun to commit one of your, presumably many, crimes.

Indeed, and what did that young man do to DESERVE the necessary force administered? Was he.. making cotton candy? Was he... making macaroni pictures for nursing home art? Was he... oh I dunno... holding a door open for an old lady? NO? He was RESISTING ARREST, you say. Well shit, I guess your point flies right out the fucking window, now doesn't it?

The fact is, that COPS don't have some kind of clairvoyant, monday morning quarterback crystal ball like YOU enjoy AFTER THE FACT. To them, he was a potential threat. End of story.


No, in yours you ASSume that some vigilante cop is out to get the common man and abuse their authority like some fucking 80s movie plot. I hate to break it to you, breaker breaker, but silly fucking bad cop bad fantasies don't have a thing to do with the real world.


and yes, if I ever find myself in that situation I will GLADLY comply with police orders. And, if I don't, I will GLADLY get tazed rather than get shot. people die each year from falling in their bathtubs than those who die from tazers. Pretending that THE MAN is out to get you when you should be compliant with police orders is just asinine.


and three shades of fucking retarded. Hey, maybe we can just give cops blanks too. You know.. BIG SCARY NOISES won't kill anyone who is acting criminally. Bonus points for the GOOD guys, right noobster?