WTF is wrong with cops man...

dmp said:
Right - but people need to look for OTHER indications of what's happening. We're conditioned to react to lights - despite what the vehicle is actually doing...that's a problem IMO.
Even when unconditioned, the lights are needed. But you're absolutely right, people need to pay better attention to their surroundings when they drive. I like having lights if just for that I watch for lights 4 or 5 cars in front of me, based off of reflections on pavement or medians, or even through windshields (if I'm lucky enough to be behind a car lower than mine) Often times I react to a car stopping 2 cars in front of me quicker than the person in front of me, and that I think validates both of our points.
 
I think im being misunderstood. The woman was a scumbag. She had multiple violations and was being arrested. The TAZER is my problem and the cops who use them as a means of subjugation instead of defense. Tazers when initially introduced were a form of non-lethal alternative to shooting a person who was deemed a threat to the officer or another person. This woman posed no threat to the officer or another person when she was being arrested. The cop should have tried to handcuff her. When she resisted he should have spoken to her and made her understand that she is making it worse for herself by resisting arrest. He then should explain that she will have the chance to defend herself in the court room. Then the cop and if neccassary his partner should have apprehended her physically. The woman was unarmed and physically she posed zero threat to the 2 officers. A TAZER should have been the last thing on the officers mind. Instead it seems that cops are trained to use the tazer for subjugation instead of defense.

Now if this had been a 230lb-300lb man who was resisting arrest, i completely understand because then, you have a threat to the officer. Tazers should be used as a LAST resort before the gun. Instead they are used as the be all and end all.
 
insein said:
I think im being misunderstood. The woman was a scumbag. She had multiple violations and was being arrested. The TAZER is my problem and the cops who use them as a means of subjugation instead of defense. Tazers when initially introduced were a form of non-lethal alternative to shooting a person who was deemed a threat to the officer or another person. This woman posed no threat to the officer or another person when she was being arrested. The cop should have tried to handcuff her. When she resisted he should have spoken to her and made her understand that she is making it worse for herself by resisting arrest. He then should explain that she will have the chance to defend herself in the court room. Then the cop and if neccassary his partner should have apprehended her physically. The woman was unarmed and physically she posed zero threat to the 2 officers. A TAZER should have been the last thing on the officers mind. Instead it seems that cops are trained to use the tazer for subjugation instead of defense.

Now if this had been a 230lb-300lb man who was resisting arrest, i completely understand because then, you have a threat to the officer. Tazers should be used as a LAST resort before the gun. Instead they are used as the be all and end all.

What if she has a knife or a razor blade or some other sort of close-contact weapon? One could argue the tazer eliminates the possibility of bodily harm from those kinds of weapons. Fact is, when someone acts so blatantly distrustful and disrespectful of the law, you can't count on them to behave in any sort of a normal manner. What if she bites them? What if she scratches them? She obviously was going to resist, and in cases of obvious resist, the tazer seems like a good alternative to getting bit by some nutball.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
What if she has a knife or a razor blade or some other sort of close-contact weapon? One could argue the tazer eliminates the possibility of bodily harm from those kinds of weapons. Fact is, when someone acts so blatantly distrustful and disrespectful of the law, you can't count on them to behave in any sort of a normal manner. What if she bites them? What if she scratches them? She obviously was going to resist, and in cases of obvious resist, the tazer seems like a good alternative to getting bit by some nutball.


If it comes to that point then by all means, taze the bitch. But he went right to the tazer.
 
insein said:
If it comes to that point then by all means, taze the bitch. But he went right to the tazer.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the taser and pepper spray. They are tools to subdue uncooperative persons who are to be arrested. These methods were developed to replace the Rodney King method. This cop asked the lady several times to cooperate, and when she failed to, even under threat of being tased, he used an appropriate level of non-lethal force to get the lady into custody. The blame for the use of the taser falls squarely on the lady, not the cop.
 
insein said:
If it comes to that point then by all means, taze the bitch. But he went right to the tazer.

If it comes to that point? If it hit that point, the damage could well be done. You want to stop it before it gets to that point. She gave absolutely no indication she would cooperate with anything.. She gave plenty of indication she was going to fight him all the way..
 
Insein Wrote:
When she resisted he should have spoken to her and made her understand that she is making it worse for herself by resisting arrest. He then should explain that she will have the chance to defend herself in the court room. Then the cop and if neccassary his partner should have apprehended her physically. The woman was unarmed and physically she posed zero threat to the 2 officers. A TAZER should have been the last thing on the officers mind. Instead it seems that cops are trained to use the tazer for subjugation instead of defense.

So in your opinion that woman would have responded to a calm, quiet conversation in which the policeman explained to the woman that she was "only making it worse for herself?" Sorry, but you and I must not have been watching the same tape. In the incident I saw, it was quite obvious that the woman in the video was out of control, hostile, and completely uncooperative...no amount of of calm conversation with that police officer would have helped.

As for your assertion that her size should have meant that the officers didn't use the tazer...well, I disagree again. :)

I don't think that we should put our honest police officers in the position to have to risk danger to themselves just because one criminal is smaller than another. Tazering...while obviously VERY painful...is a nonlethal form of subduing that keeps both cop and criminal safe.

The woman received ample warning from a police officer operating well within the means of reasonable force. It is a shame she did not take him seriously, but the intial tazering was completely understandable in my opinion.

Where you might be able to win my agreement, Insein...is in questioning why they tazer-ed her again while screaming "Put your hands behind your back!" when she was obviously screaming, "I can't!" She wasn't a threat, she seemed to be fairly incapacitated...she was responding to the request by crying that she could not do what they demanded but she wasn't moving or threatening them...why tazer her again?
 
Same with the grandma in the police precinct. Why was she tazed 5 times let alone at all? What if she had a pacemaker? Tazing is VERY Painful. Old people have less of a tolerance for pain. A shot from a tazer could have very well killed her through shock.

My fear is that police are being taught that the tazer is the only tool to use for every situation instead of the old way of "talking to people."
 
I think that you might be looking at exceptions, and trying to make them the "rule," rather than the cops who are out, doing their jobs, talking to people, using violent force only when necessary.

Look at one of the other examples given here...we watch on video as a huge, drunk man who appears to outweigh the police officer in question by about 100lbs. lumbers towards the cop shouting curses and threats...all while the police officer backs away...he backs away all around this man's front yard, saying "Sir, please stop. Please calm down."

When he finally starts to consider using his tazer the drunk says, "What, you gonna shoot me?" or something similar...when the cop says no, this is a tazer, the drunk turns and heads towards his van saying, "Well if youre gonna shoot me, I'll get my rifle out of my truck and i'll shoot you..."

Even then the cop says, "Please come back from the truck, sir. Please don't go near the truck."

I would have been fine with the police officer tazering the man when he appropached him the first time in a menacing way...but this officer waited until his life was obviously in danger.

I believe that this officer is probably the "rule," while your examples (or what you are concerned about) is the "exception."

Have a great day.
 
Gem said:
I think that you might be looking at exceptions, and trying to make them the "rule," rather than the cops who are out, doing their jobs, talking to people, using violent force only when necessary.

Look at one of the other examples given here...we watch on video as a huge, drunk man who appears to outweigh the police officer in question by about 100lbs. lumbers towards the cop shouting curses and threats...all while the police officer backs away...he backs away all around this man's front yard, saying "Sir, please stop. Please calm down."

When he finally starts to consider using his tazer the drunk says, "What, you gonna shoot me?" or something similar...when the cop says no, this is a tazer, the drunk turns and heads towards his van saying, "Well if youre gonna shoot me, I'll get my rifle out of my truck and i'll shoot you..."

Even then the cop says, "Please come back from the truck, sir. Please don't go near the truck."

I would have been fine with the police officer tazering the man when he appropached him the first time in a menacing way...but this officer waited until his life was obviously in danger.

I believe that this officer is probably the "rule," while your examples (or what you are concerned about) is the "exception."

Have a great day.

Absolutely, that cop did it the right way. He tried to calm the man down, who was obviously a physical threat to the cop. When the man threatened him with a weapon, then the cop had the right there to take him down. But just experience with the cops around here and the videos you see on the internet, it seems that more and more those good cops are the exception.
 
The ClayTaurus said:
So, you're the cop.

What's the propper way to deal with a woman you pull over for speeding, with a broken tail light, not wearing her seatbelt, and is illegally driving with a suspended license, and from the start she completely questions the legitimacy of your work? What would "Insein the Cop" have done?

The broken tail light and suspended license are minor, the seatbelt infraction is a bullshit law to begin with, and doing 50 in a 35 may or may not be dangerous. It might be a residential area, or it might be a speed trap.

The correct response would be to write the ticket and ignore her yammering (if this is the video I'm thinking of, it won't DL for me). She can pay the ticket, or not. If she doesn't pay it by the deadline, then cops will come to her house and arrest her.

The ClayTaurus said:
Where I'm from, you can get a ticket for all sorts of shit. Usually it won't stick, but it serves as a deterrent as going to court to clear yourself is a hasssle: don't be a dick to the cop, and the cop won't write you a ticket for petty shit.

Hmm yeah, call me crazy but I have a fundamental problem with cops writing tickets based on petty shit. Someone's mouthing off to you but posing no danger to anyone? Suck it up big boy--that's why we pay you a salary and give you a car. That's the problem today, our society is overlegislated and overregulated, everything is technically against the law, but it won't be enforced if you obey like good little sheeple. B-a-a-a-a!
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
The broken tail light and suspended license are minor, the seatbelt infraction is a bullshit law to begin with, and doing 50 in a 35 may or may not be dangerous. It might be a residential area, or it might be a speed trap.

The correct response would be to write the ticket and ignore her yammering (if this is the video I'm thinking of, it won't DL for me). She can pay the ticket, or not. If she doesn't pay it by the deadline, then cops will come to her house and arrest her.
And what about the suspended license? Give her a lollipop? If you haven't seen the video, I'd refrain from making judgements on it. She passed an undercover yellow mustang, and he radared her.



BaronVonBigmeat said:
Hmm yeah, call me crazy but I have a fundamental problem with cops writing tickets based on petty shit. Someone's mouthing off to you but posing no danger to anyone? Suck it up big boy--that's why we pay you a salary and give you a car. That's the problem today, our society is overlegislated and overregulated, everything is technically against the law, but it won't be enforced if you obey like good little sheeple. B-a-a-a-a!
It's called "encouraging you not to be an asshole" Like I said, show some respect, and the man doesn't fuck you.

But it's funny watching people buck the system, claiming injustice. I get a good kick outta watching a cop write you ticket after ticket. OH THE HUMANITY! Keep it up, it keeps me amused on my lunch breaks.
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
The correct response would be to write the ticket and ignore her yammering (if this is the video I'm thinking of, it won't DL for me).

The correct response would have been "Yes Officer, here's my license, registration, and proof of insurance." BTW, she wasn't tased for speeding, a broken windshield, not wearing her seatbelt, or even suspended license...she was tased for RESISTING ARREST!
 
The ClayTaurus said:
And what about the suspended license? Give her a lollipop? If you haven't seen the video, I'd refrain from making judgements on it. She passed an undercover yellow mustang, and he radared her.


That right there doesnt bug you? A non marked car can radar your car and
give you a ticket? How are you supposed to know if thats a cop or just some dope with a badge and a fancy light system rigged up? Why do they spend all this money on unmarked, specially equipped police vehicles to stop the dangerous criminal activity of speeding and yet drug dealers can still deal on corners? Because it doesnt pay the bills to stop the drug dealers.


It's called "encouraging you not to be an asshole" Like I said, show some respect, and the man doesn't fuck you.

But it's funny watching people buck the system, claiming injustice. I get a good kick outta watching a cop write you ticket after ticket. OH THE HUMANITY! Keep it up, it keeps me amused on my lunch breaks.

Yea you think its funny. Just wait till they make something you do on an everyday basis illegal. Then you too will be a criminal. Suppose listening to the radio while driving in certain townships was a $150 fine. How would a cop prove you were listening? Ah the more appropriate question would be how would you prove you werent listening? The point is, the burdon of proof is on the civilian and they usually end up paying the $150 because its "easier" then trying to fight it. You try and fight it, it ends up costing 10 times as much as just paying it. Township makes their $150 either through the ticket or the insuing court costs. The judge does not care about your opinion. They will side with the officer everytime unless you have hard evidence showing your innocence and even then its likely to have to be appealed to overturn it. The judge understands the cash flow system with local municipalities. They need to be paid just like the cops. Where does that money come from? Aside from raising taxes, they simply write more tickets.

So by all means, laugh it up at people getting a ticket. ITs only a matter of time before they outlaw something you take for granted everyday.
 
insein said:
That right there doesnt bug you? A non marked car can radar your car and
give you a ticket? How are you supposed to know if thats a cop or just some dope with a badge and a fancy light system rigged up? Why do they spend all this money on unmarked, specially equipped police vehicles to stop the dangerous criminal activity of speeding and yet drug dealers can still deal on corners? Because it doesnt pay the bills to stop the drug dealers.

Does it bother me that undercover cop cars are used? Of course, it makes it harder for me to speed and get away with it. Of course, I remedy the problem by generally not speeding, and by using radar detection, and by thinking like a cop and predicting where cops will be trapping. I know what is and isn't "legal" and understand that as soon as I decide to go 20 over the speed limit, I'm breaking the law whether I'm pulled over by a marked or unmarked car. If you don't want to get pulled over, don't speed. It's pretty simple. If you've got a car rigged up with a set of lights, there's not much of a stretch to buying an old police car from an auction and doing the same thing. You'd look even more authentic then. Everyone should know the propper ways to know if a police officer is legit or not, and do things like never pull over in an unlit-sparcely populated area. The responsibility is on you to protect yourself from imposters.


insein said:
Yea you think its funny. Just wait till they make something you do on an everyday basis illegal. Then you too will be a criminal. Suppose listening to the radio while driving in certain townships was a $150 fine. How would a cop prove you were listening? Ah the more appropriate question would be how would you prove you werent listening? The point is, the burdon of proof is on the civilian and they usually end up paying the $150 because its "easier" then trying to fight it. You try and fight it, it ends up costing 10 times as much as just paying it. Township makes their $150 either through the ticket or the insuing court costs. The judge does not care about your opinion. They will side with the officer everytime unless you have hard evidence showing your innocence and even then its likely to have to be appealed to overturn it. The judge understands the cash flow system with local municipalities. They need to be paid just like the cops. Where does that money come from? Aside from raising taxes, they simply write more tickets.

So by all means, laugh it up at people getting a ticket. ITs only a matter of time before they outlaw something you take for granted everyday.

I laugh at people who complicate their problems by being a dick. I've seen cops leave the window of who they pull over, and the jackoff can't resist getting a one liner in as he walks away, so the cop turns around, goes back, and points to a light, or a crack in the windshield, or whatever else, and tacks on another ticket. Then, because usually those kind of people are so hardheaded, they don't figure out that they should just suck it up and be quiet; they keep bitching, and he keeps finding more shit to ticket them for. I like to call it the asshole tax.

So yes, I will continue to laugh at idiots who can't just keep their mouth shut when they get busted violating a law. I like laughing at such a lack of personal responsibility. It's comical.


Now, if you want to bitch about income revenue schemes, why don't we start with photo-radar traps. I'll gladly bitch with you about those. But don't expect any sympathy from me for someone who can't have enough self-control to just accept that they got caught speeding and are going to get a ticket. Shut up, deal with it, and move on.
 
We all understand that mouthing off to a cop is a bad idea, and that the pragmatic thing to do is to keep your mouth shut. But you seem to be defending and even celebrating the police's use of trivial infractions as punishment for being rude, as though being rude to a policeman were a crime. Hypothetically, would you make rudeness to policemen a crime, if you were appointed Emperor of the United States?
 
insein said:
You always hear about cops going beyond normal procedures. The tazer imo is the worst thing that has been added to a cop's arsenel. ITs non-lethal but you feel like you want to die after you get tazed. I'd rather get maced then tazed. Add that to the fact that the officers use it as a threat instead of defense. Take a look at this video.

The bad part is about mid way through when he starts to taze her.
http://www.nearlygood.com/files834000/ladytazer.wmv

He said she tried to swing at here. Two things, she obviously didnt try to swing at the cop. You can see that on video. Second, wtf is that 100lb lady going to do to those two, 250lb men that she would need to be subdued by electrocution?

Look, cops are needed but they are there to "Protect and Serve." Who the fuck is he protecting or serving by electrocuting someone for a speeding ticket? When you give cops too much leeway they will take every inch they can. You think the government takes away personal freedoms? They merely create the laws. ITs the cops, lawyers and judges that take the freedoms away.

Have you ever been tazed? If not, then I'd kindly suggest to STFU.. :)
 
BaronVonBigmeat said:
We all understand that mouthing off to a cop is a bad idea, and that the pragmatic thing to do is to keep your mouth shut. But you seem to be defending and even celebrating the police's use of trivial infractions as punishment for being rude, as though being rude to a policeman were a crime. Hypothetically, would you make rudeness to policemen a crime, if you were appointed Emperor of the United States?

Nope, I wouldn't make it a crime. There are plenty of situations where you need to be aware that being an asshole has consequences. Be an ass to a cop, get frivolous tickets. Be an asshole to a waiter, get spit (or worse) in your food.

Being an asshole isn't a crime, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come with repercussions. It's part of the rules to life, and I laugh at people who don't understand them, or rather, refuse to understand them, as if they are somehow above them. Should, in a perfect world, you be able to be an ass to whoever you want, justified or not, and not have to worry about any problems resulting from it? Of course.

But this isn't a perfect world. (That's deep, isn't it?)
 

Forum List

Back
Top