Log in

View Full Version : Injured Boy Tasered Repeatedly By Cops



Pages : 1 [2] 3

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 04:01 PM
From the article(s), he was doing that after the cops arrived, which means it was after he had fallen and was immobile and in pain.

They have a right to secure him? Sure. But when he's unable to move, they should have just kept a visual eye on him and waited until the paramedics arrived. He wasn't going anywhere. You are NOT to move people with back/neck injuries or possible back/neck injuries. These people with these types of injuries are NOT moving , and NOT a danger in this case. These cops quite possibly paralyzed this kid for life by jarring him with tasers. Not cool, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get sued.

Jenny
08-04-2008, 04:02 PM
Am I the only one here that didn't have his mind made up upon merely reading the thread title? Geesh.
I don't understand what you are saying here?
Are you still arguing that people shouldn't have opinions on police actions that they don't themselves witness? Or are you suggesting that no response here except yours is measured or well supported?

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 04:06 PM
Also, I second what was said earlier about the cops needing to have thicker skins. I'm sure they get "threatened" by angry people and cursed at a whole lot more than your average person. Do they all get tasered as well? No. It's words, and all about context. With the job comes verbally nasty people, but cops should be able to use their judgement in this case and realize that the kid is just all talk and not all there since he fell from a fucking overpass. Who knows, he could have had some kind of cranial/brain injury from such a fall.

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 04:11 PM
Am I the only one here that didn't have his mind made up upon merely reading the thread title? Geesh.


Actually, I had read several articles about the incident prior to opening this thread.

Since Jenny and UltraViolet are already arguing the obvious as well as they can, I see no reason for me to keep parroting the same... obvious... points.

Jenny
08-04-2008, 04:19 PM
Yes, open door ask question, and whalla, it took 3 of us to detain him.
Detain or Restrain? Why were you detaining him?


So you should assume injuries, but not that he was under his own power. Was it totally and without doubt that he was injured. People say all sorts of things to escape capture/ punishment.
I don't understand. The boy has a broken back. You're saying that the police shouldn't have to take elementary steps to discover why someone is uncompliant, such as to ascertain whether someone is too injured to comply before tasering them for not complying?


If a cop is going to a call, and when he gets there there is someone on the ground threatening the cop, then even if he has not done anything to warrant arrest, they have the right to get him under control so he is not a threat or potential threat to the cops or others.
Sure. But saying things doesn't mean he was not under control physically. And all the cops have said is that he was muttering things.


I think if the cops are responding to a call and there is someone who is threatening the cops, they do have a right to get him under control.
Again - there was no indication that he wasn't "under control". The cops claimed that he wasn't complying not that he wasn't under control.


You're assuming. It doesn't matter what you would suggest, that is why the dept has protocols for dealing with circumstances:: they have dealt with things before, not you.
I'm assuming... that police should use the minimum necessary force? Isn't that actually a fairly well established principle of society? And let's not be silly. If the only people who should be able to review, critique or criticize police action are police, by the standards that they are setting for themselves, you have a junta not a police force.


Was it obvious, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was injured.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof to convict person on trial, not the standard by which people avoid police beatings.


Why threaten the cops then, when you want help?
Maybe because you are confused. Maybe because you are delerious or in shock. Maybe because the police just tasered you after you broke your back and you think that they are planning to kill you. What difference does it make? These officers were in a perfectly good position to see that he wasn't actually able to shoot them.



I like whoever said they should have called the paramedics and let them deal with him. Get real, the are many instances where hoodlums attack firefighters who are going to put out a fire on a neighbors house. The first responsibility of the cops is to secure the scene/ person. You do not let anyone just 'treat' them.
But this person didn't attack anyone.


It sounds like our cops should be able to read peoples mind in order to get the job.
No. But they should have some judgment, not use tasers to force compliance when they haven't bothered to establish (or worse yet, don't care) that a person has suffered an injury, and certainly not taser people because they get angry at them.
Again, I live in a bad neighbourhood with a whole lot of prostitutes, addicts, schizophrenics and mentally challenged people. I see police deal with them all the time. Nobody gets tasered for their mutterings. This is not something that just any cop would do, and it was certainly not unavoidable violence.

Elvia
08-04-2008, 04:24 PM
Well said, Jenny.

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 04:26 PM
Someone muttering things is not enough reason to attack them, especially if they are on the ground and have no apparent weapon. This is why mentally ill people get abused and killed by cops all the time.

And this right here is what I plan to fight, somehow, during my lifetime. The rights of people with mental illness could be a whole new thread. :-\

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 04:30 PM
^^And it might be an interesting one if things were kept civil. I'm happy that this thread has stayed that way.

doc-catfish
08-04-2008, 04:52 PM
I don't understand what you are saying here?
Are you still arguing that people shouldn't have opinions on police actions that they don't themselves witness?
No, but I'd say an opinion based on a reasonable understanding of what happened far outweighs one based on trite emotional response gathered from a media source thats lacking in objectivity. Then of course, the group think begins.

All we know is the following:

1. Someone called the police because this kid was on an overpass.
2. By the time the police arrived he had fallen off the overpass, seriously injuring himself.
3. The police found him, despite his injuries, to be belligerent, so they tasered him, 19 times.
4. The kid is at home now recovering from his injuries, which resulted from the fall, which occurred before the police got there. The kid by his own admission, doesn't know how he fell off the overpass.

So I'm pretty noncommittal here. Knowing why he was up there, and why he fell off might change my mind.

I mean, I'm not a police officer, nor have I ever been, so I don't think its my place to know and proclaim how one will or should act in a stressful situation. I've seen tasers demonstrated, but I don't know what somebody can do with 19 jolts that couldn't be done with two or three. Anyone here with police officer credentials that can answer either of those? If not, you're in the same boat I am.


Or are you suggesting that no response here except yours is measured or well supported?
No, no, no. That seems to be everyone else's response.

The claptrap from the knee jerk ideologues on these boards (or any board) has gotten so predictable, its practically comical anymore. You can probably guess the content of the political threads on the member boards just by looking at the title and the post count.

I've dealt with cops on many occasions, and have found them more often than not, to be decent people. A few of them OTOH, aren't too far detached from the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us against. Mind you, we're talking small town Missouri here folks. Small town PD's can't afford to pay their police well, therefore they're not exactly flush with applications for the job. Sometimes these burgs have to take whatever Billy Bob they can get.

Jenny
08-04-2008, 05:06 PM
No, but I'd say an opinion based on a reasonable understanding of what happened far outweighs one based on trite emotional response gathered from a media source thats lacking in objectivity. Then of course, the group think begins.
Well, I pointed towards a local news source, that had video of the police, the boy, his father and his aunt. Was that not adequately objective?


All we know is the following:

1. Someone called the police because this kid was on an overpass.
2. By the time the police arrived he had fallen off the overpass, seriously injuring himself.
3. The police found him, despite his injuries, to be belligerent, so they tasered him, 19 times.
4. The kid is at home now recovering from his injuries, which resulted from the fall, which occurred before the police got there. The kid by his own admission, doesn't know how he fell off the overpass.
I would suggest you left out 5 - that the kid's injuries were exacerbated because he was unable to be treated immediately because of police action.
However, I don't think anyone else is claiming to know more. I think those are pretty much the facts that most of us are working with. I actually don't see for the life of me why what the kid was doing up on the overpass has to do with it. I think the facts provided are very adequate to form at least a preliminary opinion.


I mean, I'm not a police officer, nor have I ever been, so I don't think its my place to know and proclaim how one will or should act in a stressful situation.
Really? I'm not a police officer and never plan to be; I am, however a member of society in which police have powers that greatly outstrip those of an ordinary citizen and think that it is absolutely my place to know and to have opinions on the circumstances under which they can exercise those powers, whether under stress or not. As I said - a police force that is answerable only to itself is a police state.


No, no, no. That seems to be everyone else's response.
I'm not sure it is. Other people are presenting their positions and supporting them; not saying "none of you have good positions".


The claptrap from the knee jerk ideologues on these boards (or any board) has gotten so predictable, its practically comical anymore.
Sure; I do my share of eye rolling. But I'm not sure it makes "none of you should have opinions because you've had opinions in the past" an excellent response.

glambman
08-04-2008, 05:14 PM
From the article(s), he was doing that after the cops arrived, which means it was after he had fallen and was immobile and in pain.

They have a right to secure him? Sure. But when he's unable to move, they should have just kept a visual eye on him and waited until the paramedics arrived. He wasn't going anywhere. You are NOT to move people with back/neck injuries or possible back/neck injuries. These people with these types of injuries are NOT moving , and NOT a danger in this case. These cops quite possibly paralyzed this kid for life by jarring him with tasers. Not cool, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get sued.


I've never had a broken back, but I don't that is going to stop you from moving arms/ legs.

How do we know the cops knew he fell? There are other logical reasons for how he could have gotten down.


My responses in bold:


Detain or Restrain? Why were you detaining him?

Because, we open the door and the alcohol smell shoots out. He attacked us. In these parts, our US laws are based on British Common LAw which allow a person who witnesses a crime to detain the person who committed the crime (i.e. citizens arrest).

I don't understand. The boy has a broken back. You're saying that the police shouldn't have to take elementary steps to discover why someone is uncompliant, such as to ascertain whether someone is too injured to comply before tasering them for not complying?

And while doing so, he is mumbling things including kill the police and shoot the police. And it is not unreasonable to say he was moving his arms around.

Sure. But saying things doesn't mean he was not under control physically. And all the cops have said is that he was muttering things.

Read another story then, one with more information, including what the cops said.

Again - there was no indication that he wasn't "under control". The cops claimed that he wasn't complying not that he wasn't under control.

When the cops heard threats they did not 'move in and get him'.

I'm assuming... that police should use the minimum necessary force? Isn't that actually a fairly well established principle of society? And let's not be silly. If the only people who should be able to review, critique or criticize police action are police, by the standards that they are setting for themselves, you have a junta not a police force.

It's reasonable force. You can't say minimum, because if someone is shooting at you, you are going to shoot back instead of trying to taze him.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof to convict person on trial, not the standard by which people avoid police beatings.

OK, I'll go your way, show me where the cops knew he was injured and not a 'threat'.


Maybe because you are confused. Maybe because you are delerious or in shock. Maybe because the police just tasered you after you broke your back and you think that they are planning to kill you. What difference does it make? These officers were in a perfectly good position to see that he wasn't actually able to shoot them.

lol the kid turns out to say he didn't know how he fell, and doesn't remember anything. So, it is possible that he just doesn't remember what the cops are saying.

But this person didn't attack anyone.

You don't have to attack anyone, a mere statement like shoot the police or kill the police are enough to take precautioun.

No. But they should have some judgment, not use tasers to force compliance when they haven't bothered to establish (or worse yet, don't care) that a person has suffered an injury, and certainly not taser people because they get angry at them.
Again, I live in a bad neighbourhood with a whole lot of prostitutes, addicts, schizophrenics and mentally challenged people. I see police deal with them all the time. Nobody gets tasered for their mutterings. This is not something that just any cop would do, and it was certainly not unavoidable violence.

As was said to me, but this is not those circumstances. If one of those people said what this kid said, I bet he will be detained (not necessarilytazed).


If you waant the expanded story, IIRC it's kt3 or something. Just YAHOO!! kid tazed police overpass

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 05:16 PM
I've never had a broken back, but I don't that is going to stop you from moving arms/ legs.

Thank you for the lolz

glambman
08-04-2008, 05:19 PM
I would suggest you left out 5 - that the kid's injuries were exacerbated because he was unable to be treated immediately because of police action.



lol lol lol

The kid chose to walk on the overpass, undoubtedly, he did a poor job, evidenced by falling off. Hey, even from his statements, he doesn't remember anything, so..............it is possible he did act in a foolish way, saying things he shouldn't have, to people he shouldn't have said them too. (Just look at his aforementioned foolish actions.)

If he would not have done just one of the above, the cops would not have tazed him even once. So, how exactly is it the cops fault?

glambman
08-04-2008, 05:21 PM
Thank you for the lolz


lol I forgot to add a 'think'. (I don't think that...).

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 05:22 PM
I've never had a broken back, but I don't that is going to stop you from moving arms/ legs.


:rotfl::O Are you serious? You don't think so? Please do some research, thank you.

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 05:24 PM
"When an injury occurs in the back section of the spinal column, and the individual vertabrae become fractured or dislocated, the back can be described as broken or fractured. . . .

If the spinal cord becomes bruised or partially damaged due to swelling, trauma or laceration, then paraplegia or other neurological conditions may result.

If you think someone could possibly be suffering a spinal injury, DO NOT attempt to move the injured person even a little bit, unless it is absolutely necessary (like getting someone out of a burning car).

If you are in doubt about whether a person has a spinal injury, assume that he or she DOES have one."

glambman
08-04-2008, 05:30 PM
:rotfl::O Are you serious? You don't think so? Please do some research, thank you.


"If the spinal cord becomes bruised or partially damaged due to swelling, trauma or laceration, then paraplegia or other neurological conditions may result.




Right, my cousin jumped of a platform into a lake and snapped his neck. Yes, he couldn't move. I dealt with people who were paraplegic, they had no problem moving their upperarms after the injury (during the incidence).

While it could limit this kids movements, as I said, it does not mean he couldn't move.

glambman
08-04-2008, 05:49 PM
At www.apparelyzed.com, the broken back section::::

then paraplegia or other neurological conditions may result.

may may may may may may not will

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 06:00 PM
You are like talking to a brick wall Glabman. I give up.

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 06:03 PM
If your scrotum were ripped open, you may pass out from the pain. But otherwise you'd be conscious, and therefore able to, say, tie your shoes. Right?

kitana
08-04-2008, 06:43 PM
Let's see, a call that someone is walking on the overpass. When they get there, the guy is lying on the street cursing/ threatening. Are the cops supposed to know his back is broken? He seems to have an attitude with the rubbish coming from his mouth.

Has anyone ever seen someone in diabetic shock? My neighbor suffered this twice on his way back from the store. I didn't realize it was him the second time and called the cops on a violent drunken driver. lol He crashed into a tree in the neighbor across from me, two houses from his. I helped push the truck to his driveway.

and how the FUCK do you or they know he was really meaning to say "DON'T shoot me cops, DON'T kill me cops"?! If you are in shock, you may mean to say one thing, and really think you are, but say something totally different.

glambman
08-04-2008, 06:47 PM
and how the FUCK do you or they know he was really meaning to say "DON'T shoot me cops, DON'T kill me cops"?! If you are in shock, you may mean to say one thing, and really think you are, but say something totally different.


ouch, why he four letter word?

It doesn't matter what he may have meant, it's how it came out.

kitana
08-04-2008, 06:48 PM
It's in jest, no need to be uptight.

He shouldn't have been walking on the overpass, and shouldn't have threatened the police. There's no need to feel sorry for him.

As for stereotypical and judgmental, ya'll are ready to crucify the cops. From the looks of it..........................

In this case, sounds to me like they DESERVE to be crucified, and I hope the parents sue, all the officers loose their jobs, and the boy gets a FAT paycheck from this.

kitana
08-04-2008, 06:50 PM
Force has different levels, just because one's life is not threatened does not mean force can't be used.

Yes, we're talking about a kid who chose an action and is suffering the consequences of those actions.
Sorry I call BULLSHIT.

It was INEXCUSABLE what those so called law enforcement officers did to this child.

The kid was obviously out of it, as would any of us be if we had just broken our backs; lying there doing nothing, and in shock and babbling.

kitana
08-04-2008, 07:00 PM
I've never had a broken back, but I don't that is going to stop you from moving arms/ legs.

Depends on where the break is. Below a certain point and you loose only leg and lower body function, above a certain point, and you loose all movement from neck down. I have friends both who are quads (neck down) and para (waist down), and it depends on the type of break, how long till it is fixed, among various things.

But, yes a broken back WILL easily stop you from moving limbs and appendages.

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 07:15 PM
Regardless, you still aren't going to be moving fast enough to pose a threat against 2 able bodied, unharmed police officers. Especially fast enough to merit tasing you 19 times.

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 07:16 PM
And assaulting a minor is a felony, not something to be taken lightly

glambman
08-04-2008, 07:23 PM
Depends on where the break is. Below a certain point and you loose only leg and lower body function, above a certain point, and you loose all movement from neck down. I have friends both who are quads (neck down) and para (waist down), and it depends on the type of break, how long till it is fixed, among various things.

But, yes a broken back WILL easily stop you from moving limbs and appendages.

It's like your saying if 'you broke your finger, you will not be able to move it'. And yes, in some cases that is true, but just because you break a finger, doesn't mean you will not be able to move that finger.


I am not disagreeing. A broken back, depending on all the factors, may cause loss of mobility/ function, and in those cases where it does, it will easily stop you from moving limbs and appendages.

:)

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 07:25 PM
A broken anything bigger than a toe will effectively keep an unarmed teenage boy from harming cops

glambman
08-04-2008, 07:43 PM
And assaulting a minor is a felony, not something to be taken lightly




2 Peanuts were walking down the street... and one was assaulted!

AlexxaHex
08-04-2008, 08:11 PM
He was threatening them, telling them off. They have the right to secure the him.

They have a right to taze an UNDERAGED person with a broken back (if they didn't know his back was broken they would know he is obviously injured and lying on the ground) 19 times because he SAID something to them? Why don't you cite an actual law in Missouri where it says that they have a legal right to hurt people for what they SAY? How do we even know he said anything at all? Because the cops who tazed him 19 times said he did. Because they were the only witnesses. Ohhhh okay. ::)


lol lol lol

The kid chose to walk on the overpass, undoubtedly, he did a poor job, evidenced by falling off. Hey, even from his statements, he doesn't remember anything, so..............it is possible he did act in a foolish way, saying things he shouldn't have, to people he shouldn't have said them too. (Just look at his aforementioned foolish actions.)

If he would not have done just one of the above, the cops would not have tazed him even once. So, how exactly is it the cops fault?

So anyone who is "stupid" enough to sustain injury deserves further injury and assault. Gotcha.

Do us all a favor and just stop posting. Everything you say can only be labeled as "wrong".

glambman
08-04-2008, 08:34 PM
They have a right to taze an UNDERAGED person with a broken back (if they didn't know his back was broken they would know he is obviously injured and lying on the ground) 19 times because he SAID something to them? Why don't you cite an actual law in Missouri where it says that they have a legal right to hurt people for what they SAY? How do we even know he said anything at all? Because the cops who tazed him 19 times said he did. Because they were the only witnesses. Ohhhh okay. ::)

Age is irrelevant. It seems as if they didn't know he was injured. Obviously injured? Could have been on drugs. As I said numerous times, they have the right to secure a person, to make sure he is not a threat. Why would I want to waste time looking for a law that I haven't even said anything about. Well, he doesn't know. ::)



So anyone who is "stupid" enough to sustain injury deserves further injury and assault. Gotcha.

When did I say that.



Everything you say can only be labeled as "wrong".

Or analytical and objective.

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 08:43 PM
*headdesk*

jaizaine
08-04-2008, 08:58 PM
The cops in the US are so scary seriously.

Perry
08-04-2008, 08:59 PM
OMG! Between this, the don't talk to cops thread, and this poor woman who was violently strip searched by male cops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riboisae0JY&feature=related) (clicking that will take you to the video - WARNING! It is graphic!) I really just don't feel safe anymore >:( It's like I woke up in a different country.

AlexxaHex
08-04-2008, 09:02 PM
As far as we know, this boy didn't provide the ACTION to warrant being "secured". He only SPOKE. And even if he were a possible threat, which is very unlikely given that he broke his back and was lying on the ground and had no weapons, he didn't need to be tazed 19 times.

In fact, he may not have said anything at all because the police were the only witnesses. You seem to have glossed over that.

I can't believe we keep needing to explain this to you. Or are you just being contrary for the hell of it?

TheSexKitten
08-04-2008, 09:07 PM
for glambman:

AlexxaHex
08-04-2008, 09:08 PM
Lol Tsk!!

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 09:09 PM
OMG TSK :rotfl:

LilyLove
08-04-2008, 09:19 PM
The video of the lady being undressed made me cry. I can't believe they had men holding her down and undressing her! I would be panicking too with those men's hands all over me!

UltraViolet
08-04-2008, 09:27 PM
It's also sad that there was a female officer helping the whole time.

CKXXX
08-04-2008, 09:31 PM
unbelievable that we are still discussing this. NO there was NO cause for this. tasering a kid with a broken back who wasnt moving NINETEEN times for talking some shit??Are you shitting me? Anyone who thinks that ok...thats really fucking scary thinking.

AlexxaHex
08-04-2008, 09:52 PM
It IS truly unbelievable. That's why I wonder if he isn't just arguing for the sake of it. Because otherwise it's really fucked up.

gingerlee
08-05-2008, 01:17 AM
Someone muttering things is not enough reason to attack them, especially if they are on the ground and have no apparent weapon. This is why mentally ill people get abused and killed by cops all the time.

Quick story and then I'll run and hide. My mother called me a few months ago screaming 'they shot him' over and over. I had no idea what she was talking about but once I got her to calm down for a minute she told me one of her patients had been killed by the cops. He was mentally ill living in a group home but needed to be transported to a more secure facility. The cops were called out to the group home knowing where they were going to just keep the guy from running off before he was taken to a hospital or whatever. When the sick guy saw the cops he went running toward them, so they shot him with a taser and then with an actual gun with I think it was either 8 or 9 bullets. His nurse and doctor sat there screaming that he was mentally ill.

I guess my issue with it was that once the guy was down, why was it necessary to keep shooting him? He lived in an effing group home for people with mental issues, so when the cops went over to keep him from running away, did they think it would be sunshine and ponies and the guy wouldn't freak out? Crazy people do crazy shit, and while it was fucked up of him to run at the cops, shooting him 8 or 9 times and a taser was a litte too much, but that's just me. I have a soft spot for crazy folks.

glambman
08-05-2008, 07:53 AM
OMG! Between this, the don't talk to cops thread, and this poor woman who was violently strip searched by male cops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riboisae0JY&feature=related) (clicking that will take you to the video - WARNING! It is graphic!) I really just don't feel safe anymore >:( It's like I woke up in a different country.


Do you drive? you could be a victim of a carjacker, a drunk driver, a ricer, or all sorts of other things. Scared bout that?. Hey, in anything you do, there is a risk that someone will do something to you. You're not safe at home, they coukd do a home invasion.

wow, I'm so glad for this thread, it's made me see that these fuckers deserved what they got::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s11aV2pvMMY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz5--_qI_hU&feature=related

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o94CWqUpsY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT2hX72BS6A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0YV_EwYw_8&feature=related

Paris
08-05-2008, 08:28 AM
Age is irrelevant. It seems as if they didn't know he was injured. Obviously injured? Could have been on drugs. As I said numerous times, they have the right to secure a person, to make sure he is not a threat. Why would I want to waste time looking for a law that I haven't even said anything about. Well, he doesn't know. ::)



Here's hoping you, or anyone else for that matter, never find yourself in the position that this boy found himself. Because obviously the amount of leeway cops have in making decisions is a large one.

Here in Oregon a couple of years ago, cops shot and killed an 18 year old boy who was threatening to kill himself. Well, he did have a broken alcohol bottle, so I guess that was an imminent threat...

In my experience, I would never call the cops. Of course, after everything is said and done, then call the cops. As for calling them for help, forget about it.

CKXXX
08-05-2008, 08:51 AM
Here in Oregon a couple of years ago, cops shot and killed an 18 year old boy who was threatening to kill himself. Well, he did have a broken alcohol bottle, so I guess that was an imminent threat...



Wow. thats some fucked up rationing there..."we were afraid for his life..so we killed him"...WTF???

glambman
08-05-2008, 09:26 AM
Here in Oregon a couple of years ago, cops shot and killed an 18 year old boy who was threatening to kill himself. Well, he did have a broken alcohol bottle, so I guess that was an imminent threat...


Are you referring to the incident in Portland where the parents initially called the cops? In '06.




In my experience, I would never call the cops. Of course, after everything is said and done, then call the cops. As for calling them for help, forget about it.

That doesn't make sense. You would never call the cops, but would after all is said and done, but not for help.

LuckyOne
08-05-2008, 10:27 AM
Force has different levels, just because one's life is not threatened does not mean force can't be used.

Yes, we're talking about a kid who chose an action and is suffering the consequences of those actions.


I think you're like a stripper thats been dancing so long she thinks FS is ok in the VIP room. If this kid was *ever* posing a true "threat" one taze MAY have been justified. Not 19. If you think the actions of the officers in this case were acceptable, I am grateful you are a retired officer.

glambman
08-05-2008, 10:48 AM
I think you're like a stripper thats been dancing so long she thinks FS is ok in the VIP room. If this kid was *ever* posing a true "threat" one taze MAY have been justified. Not 19. If you think the actions of the officers in this case were acceptable, I am grateful you are a retired officer.


You are confusing me with someone else, I have never been a cop.

There are two factors here, the first is: were the police justified in trying to 'detain' the perp, and second: were 19 jolts justified.

To the first I said yes, I have never said anything about needing 19 jolts.