[VIDEO] ~ Cops Taser Senior Citizen in His Own Home After He Tells Them To Leave...

[ConHog]

How can that be true, RC? If the cops hear from a credible source that someone is suicidal, they can make a warrantless entry? Can they bust down a locked door too? I'm confused. Why do cops get 5150 orders (pick up and hold for observation orders) then?

The answer is yes, if LEO have reasonable suspicion to believe someone's life is in danger, they don't need a warrant. You would change this?

Suppose LEO arrive at a house, they hear a woman screaming inside, but they have no warrant..... They just let the woman get her ass kicked, or killed? Nope, reasonable suspicion.

 

[ConHog]

That broad had it coming...she was putting the cop in danger. 72 ain't an excuse to be an asshole.

George is one of those jerks who thinks that LEO should just take whatever people dish out, including the fact that the old lady was attempting to get in her truck and drive off after being told she was under arrest. THIS after 5 warnings that she was going to be tased.

How stupid can people be? Sign the freaking ticket and fight in in court if you wish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How can that be true, RC? If the cops hear from a credible source that someone is suicidal, they can make a warrantless entry? Can they bust down a locked door too? I'm confused. Why do cops get 5150 orders (pick up and hold for observation orders) then?

The answer is yes, if LEO have reasonable suspicion to believe someone's life is in danger, they don't need a warrant. You would change this?

Suppose LEO arrive at a house, they hear a woman screaming inside, but they have no warrant..... They just let the woman get her ass kicked, or killed? Nope, reasonable suspicion.

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

 

[ConHog]

How can that be true, RC? If the cops hear from a credible source that someone is suicidal, they can make a warrantless entry? Can they bust down a locked door too? I'm confused. Why do cops get 5150 orders (pick up and hold for observation orders) then?

The answer is yes, if LEO have reasonable suspicion to believe someone's life is in danger, they don't need a warrant. You would change this?

Suppose LEO arrive at a house, they hear a woman screaming inside, but they have no warrant..... They just let the woman get her ass kicked, or killed? Nope, reasonable suspicion.

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

Yeah except that if the police were called to a residence, and they are told of a threat (even a threat to oneself) and they don't do everything they can to make sure no one is hurt, they open themselves up to lawsuits. Imagine if they showed up cuz a family member called and said "grandpa is threatening to kill himself" and grandpa told them to fuck off, so they left then grandpa killed himself? How could the LEO possibly ascertain whether the threat was real or not? They aren't trained for that.

 

[George Costanza]

That broad had it coming...she was putting the cop in danger. 72 ain't an excuse to be an asshole.

I totally agree.

 

[George Costanza]

How can that be true, RC? If the cops hear from a credible source that someone is suicidal, they can make a warrantless entry? Can they bust down a locked door too? I'm confused. Why do cops get 5150 orders (pick up and hold for observation orders) then?

The answer is yes, if LEO have reasonable suspicion to believe someone's life is in danger, they don't need a warrant. You would change this?

Suppose LEO arrive at a house, they hear a woman screaming inside, but they have no warrant..... They just let the woman get her ass kicked, or killed? Nope, reasonable suspicion.

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

He may have said some stupid things out of hearing of the police, but someone reported what he said to the police - and that should be enough to justify the police entering the home to check it out. An exigent circumstance entry into a home does not require the independent corroboration necessary before police can act on an anonymous tip that a crime is being committed in a residence.

 

[uscitizen]

Should Fatherland Security have the right to do this kind of stuff to anyone in the name of national Security?

 

[ConHog]

The answer is yes, if LEO have reasonable suspicion to believe someone's life is in danger, they don't need a warrant. You would change this?

Suppose LEO arrive at a house, they hear a woman screaming inside, but they have no warrant..... They just let the woman get her ass kicked, or killed? Nope, reasonable suspicion.

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

He may have said some stupid things out of hearing of the police, but someone reported what he said to the police - and that should be enough to justify the police entering the home to check it out. An exigent circumstance entry into a home does not require the independent corroboration necessary before police can act on an anonymous tip that a crime is being committed in a residence.

I'm not even convinced that they weren't invited in to begin with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The answer is yes, if LEO have reasonable suspicion to believe someone's life is in danger, they don't need a warrant. You would change this?

Suppose LEO arrive at a house, they hear a woman screaming inside, but they have no warrant..... They just let the woman get her ass kicked, or killed? Nope, reasonable suspicion.

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

Yeah except that if the police were called to a residence, and they are told of a threat (even a threat to oneself) and they don't do everything they can to make sure no one is hurt, they open themselves up to lawsuits. Imagine if they showed up cuz a family member called and said "grandpa is threatening to kill himself" and grandpa told them to fuck off, so they left then grandpa killed himself? How could the LEO possibly ascertain whether the threat was real or not? They aren't trained for that.

That certainly justifies them electrocuting a 68 year old man with a heart condition.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, a Taser is a weapon, and should not be used simply because someone is not cooperating with the orders of a LEO. It should only be used when the life of a LEO or another person is in immediate danger, and the LEO does not want to use his service weapon.

If LEOs were trained to think this way they would not be Tasing old men in their living rooms, or old women on oxygen in their beds. This might mean they actually have to call for help to handle these old people, and that might hurt their macho image, but they will live, and so will a lot of people that LEOs routinely Tase for inadequate reasons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The answer is yes, if LEO have reasonable suspicion to believe someone's life is in danger, they don't need a warrant. You would change this?

Suppose LEO arrive at a house, they hear a woman screaming inside, but they have no warrant..... They just let the woman get her ass kicked, or killed? Nope, reasonable suspicion.

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

He may have said some stupid things out of hearing of the police, but someone reported what he said to the police - and that should be enough to justify the police entering the home to check it out. An exigent circumstance entry into a home does not require the independent corroboration necessary before police can act on an anonymous tip that a crime is being committed in a residence.

None of which justifies using deadly force on someone simply because they refuse medical treatment, which is essentially the case in this instance, and quite a few others I could cite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

He may have said some stupid things out of hearing of the police, but someone reported what he said to the police - and that should be enough to justify the police entering the home to check it out. An exigent circumstance entry into a home does not require the independent corroboration necessary before police can act on an anonymous tip that a crime is being committed in a residence.

I'm not even convinced that they weren't invited in to begin with.

That is irrelevant. If you watch the entire 38 minutes of available video you can see that the man is rational, even if he is annoyed that the LEOs are in his house. They should have left when that invitation was revoked, or do you think they have a right to stay even after that? Last time I looked, the law was pretty specific about my right to tell LEOs to take a hike at any point.

 

[ConHog]

There is a difference between a reasonable suspicion that a person is in danger, and an old man who is in pain saying stupid things out of the hearing of the police.

Yeah except that if the police were called to a residence, and they are told of a threat (even a threat to oneself) and they don't do everything they can to make sure no one is hurt, they open themselves up to lawsuits. Imagine if they showed up cuz a family member called and said "grandpa is threatening to kill himself" and grandpa told them to fuck off, so they left then grandpa killed himself? How could the LEO possibly ascertain whether the threat was real or not? They aren't trained for that.

That certainly justifies them electrocuting a 68 year old man with a heart condition.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, a Taser is a weapon, and should not be used simply because someone is not cooperating with the orders of a LEO. It should only be used when the life of a LEO or another person is in immediate danger, and the LEO does not want to use his service weapon.

If LEOs were trained to think this way they would not be Tasing old men in their living rooms, or old women on oxygen in their beds. This might mean they actually have to call for help to handle these old people, and that might hurt their macho image, but they will live, and so will a lot of people that LEOs routinely Tase for inadequate reasons.

Proving that you don't understand what tasers are for. They are not designated as deadly weapons, they are designated as control weapons. And they are specifically designed so that one officer may control a situation which otherwise might require several officers. In today's world of budget restraints, that is necessary. One officer armed with a taser is certainly cheaper than three officers.

The fact of the matter is that not enough people get tasered, if more people who resisted LEO were tasered people would get the message, don't fight cops.

You don't agree that there is a fucking problem when a 70 + year old lady thinks she can just refuse to sign a ticket push a cop towards oncoming traffic and then just drive off?

Sure some LEO abuse the taser, but used correctly it is a vital weapon, and not every instance of its use is an abuse. You clearly think that it is.

 

[ConHog]

He may have said some stupid things out of hearing of the police, but someone reported what he said to the police - and that should be enough to justify the police entering the home to check it out. An exigent circumstance entry into a home does not require the independent corroboration necessary before police can act on an anonymous tip that a crime is being committed in a residence.

I'm not even convinced that they weren't invited in to begin with.

That is irrelevant. If you watch the entire 38 minutes of available video you can see that the man is rational, even if he is annoyed that the LEOs are in his house. They should have left when that invitation was revoked, or do you think they have a right to stay even after that? Last time I looked, the law was pretty specific about my right to tell LEOs to take a hike at any point.

Actually, you can't just willy nilly tell LEO to leave at any point. If you invite them into your home and then they start noticing that you're talking about harming yourself or others, you can't just say "get the fuck out of my house" and expect them to leave.

 

[Madeline]

Does it hurt to be this full of crap, ConHog?

I know it hurts me, just reading it.

Here's a fucking clue: want legal advice? Ask a fucking LAWYER. Not some internet wannabe.

 

[ConHog]

Does it hurt to be this full of crap, ConHog?

I know it hurts me, just reading it.

Here's a fucking clue: want legal advice? Ask a fucking LAWYER. Not some internet wannabe.

You're a dumb bitch. I don't pretend to be a lawyer, I know one pretty well though. and I definitely know about warrant less entry procedures. As well as the use of tasers. George is awake, ask him if I'm wrong.

Actually, what do you think I'm wrong about here? tell me exactly.

Also, why did you leave the other thread when I pointed out that you're stupid and worthless and all you were doing there was trying to misconstrue my posts?

In short, post something of substance loser.

 

[Madeline]

O for fuck's sake. What the fuck? I owe you an explanation of where I have been during the past hour or so?

Seek help. This just ain't normal, ConHog.

 

[Douger]

How can that be true, RC? If the cops hear from a credible source that someone is suicidal, they can make a warrantless entry? Can they bust down a locked door too? I'm confused. Why do cops get 5150 orders (pick up and hold for observation orders) then?

I'm not certain about pick up and hold for observation, but they can and will break down a door if they think they have probable cause to do so. I think the police in this instance acted by the book up until the taze, but at the same time they acted unwisely. Obviously, the deputy was young, and not well trained so we have that problem first, and foremost. A more experienced officer would have probably seen this for what it was instead of letting his anger dictate his actions. The older gentleman flunked the attitude test and that is really all it took. It is going to be an expensive lesson for the deputy, and I hope the lawsuit is successful because this is really the only sure means we have available to keep them honest.

It's also interesting to consider the mindset of a young police officer who has spent his entire, thinking life since late childhood surrounded by war and the encroaching police state apparatus thanks to 9/11. In his mind I'm sure this type of behavior is perfectly normal because that is what he has been conditioned to believe.

Exactly why sooner than later they'll have to be taken out.

 

[pinqy]

The cops had a duty to have the man investigated. He was abusive and refused to obey their commands. What exactly are people suggesting the rule should be? That if someone disobeys the police, they should just do nothing and let them go? Not exactly practical. Though criminals would love it if that were the case: "Put your hands behind your back!" "Fuck off!" "Oh, ok, I guess we'll just let you go then." How does this make sense to the people here suggesting that?

 

[ConHog]

O for fuck's sake. What the fuck? I owe you an explanation of where I have been during the past hour or so?

Seek help. This just ain't normal, ConHog.

You're right it isn't normal to come into a thread throw insults tell someone they are wrong and offer no explanation of what you think they are wrong about, and then run.

You need professional help Madeline.

 

[topspin]

certainly don't ask a wingnut narc history major with a trigger finger.