Log in

View Full Version : Student arrested, shot with Taser gun for asking a question



Pages : 1 2 [3]

ArmySGT.
09-20-2007, 04:48 PM
1. The is no "necessity' for telling an Offender that they "are under arrest"

2. An Officer does not have to "read" an Offender their Miranda Rights until he is ready to question them. Any utterance by them that is not a response to a direct question by the arresting Officer is a voluntary statement and admissable.

3. Tasers are far more preferable to using a baton, and most agencies have policy against using OC pepper sprays in crowded areas not in Riot. Due to lawsuits by bystanders with asthma or or problems breathing. With a baton striking a blow is very limited; the head, all joints, striking the thorax with the tip, jabs to the abdomen, and lower back are all completely off limits, as a strike in those locations can cause permanent damage or death. Tasers a mildly painful, ever touched an electric cattle fence? I have and I have been Tasered too. The taser shock continues for five seconds and disrupts the signals to the voluntary muscles.

I know why the cops would use a taser on a subject they have pinned. The handcuffs are not on yet, and the fight is still on. I myself when I was an MP had to apprehend (arrest) Offenders that didn't want to go to jail. Takes four good sized MPs to hold down one combative subject. When you have five you will be able to get cuffs on after each leg is under control, each arm is under control,and the last to prevent injuries (like dislocating a shoulder or breaking a wrist on the offender) , make sure a weapon doesn't get loose, and help with applying the cuffs. That's when the combative is sober. That one on one shit is for TV dramas.

Again the tasers disrupts the signal from the brain to the voluntary muscles, the offender has no control over thier muscles and can be safely handcuffed without risk of permanent injury because of a diislocated shoulder, broken bone or torn ligaments. Means the cops don't face the same risk of injury too.

Casual Observer
09-20-2007, 04:55 PM
OK, even if you ignore Taser's own studies showing a 79% drop in suspect injuries as propaganda, (http://www.taser.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Controlled%20Documents/Legal/TASER%20Device%20Liability%20and%20Litigation%20Ri sk.pdf) you can to look at independent department studies to get a more local feel for its effectiveness in preventing injuries. Here's Cincinnati's numbers, on page 7. (http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/downloads/police_pdf9647.pdf)

People appalled by police brutality should applaud the use of Tasers--it removes the excuse for excessive physical force.

Jenny
09-20-2007, 05:17 PM
Army Sgt - I honestly don't know if that is true, and I really don't see you as an expert. However, whether your are right or not - in order to be RESISTING arrest (in the criminal sense), the detainee has to know that he or she is under arrest (and that the person arresting him is a police officer).

CO - You are making so many assumptions there. However - it is still only better if it is less violent - not using physical force and THEN tasering (like what happened here). People appalled by police brutality are not likely to applaud developments that allow police to be brutal and sadistic but without leaving evidence of brutality. Tasers are good when they are used as a less violent alternative when violent apprehension is necessary. Not just for fun or for police officers - or worse yet security guards - to express their tempers.

Alia_of_the_Knife
09-20-2007, 05:43 PM
The kid was being manic but I think tasering him was ridiculous. Just let him be a nut, it's not like anyone was in danger from the kid ranting like a freak.

Sirona
09-20-2007, 06:12 PM
Right so let anyone be a disruptive fuckhead as long as he isn't a physical danger?
Wtf...

xdamage
09-20-2007, 06:33 PM
Right so let anyone be a disruptive fuckhead as long as he isn't a physical danger?
Wtf...

I guess the way I think is this summarized:

1.) I do understand why everyone is worried about the rights of the individual, but...

2.) Societies have to balance what is in the interest of individuals with what's in the interest of the larger group.

3.) If everyone acted like Andrew, nothing would be accomplished in a group.

4.) If people want absolute freedom to do anything they want, no matter how much of a drain it is on everyone else, then they should a.) live alone, or b.) start their own societies. Because asshats like Andrew are drains on the rest of us who want to discuss issues because we really care, and we believe in intelligent discussion, and we aren't doing it just to be attention whores, and attention whores like Andrew damage the productive process for everyone.

Bottom line for me... Andrew is just one of many. I value his right to free speech, but I also value the larger groups right to speak and exchange ideas free of the one who is just in it for a personal ego stroking and really doesn't give a fuck if they are damaging to the freedoms of everyone else. I really don't see Andrew as sincere in his interest to get to the truths. I do see him as being an attention whore who is so self absorbed, he really doesn't give a fuck if his behavior is damaging to the group as a whole.

Paris
09-20-2007, 06:48 PM
Bottom line for me... Andrew is just one of many. I value his right to free speech, but I also value the larger groups right to speak and exchange ideas free of the one who is just in it for a personal ego stroking and really doesn't give a fuck if they are damaging to the freedoms of everyone else. I really don't see Andrew as sincere in his interest to get to the truths. I do see him as being an attention whore who is so self absorbed, he really doesn't give a fuck if his behavior is damaging to the group as a whole.

And we have contributed 5 pages on a stripper forum to further his ego...Just sayin';).

I also wanted to add that if he was such a disruptive problem, then how did he get into the event in the first place? How did he manage to reach the microphone? Why was he even allowed to attend the university? Especially in the wake of the Virgina Tech massacre.

He is/was acting in a passionate way. Of course, we all know what happens when annoying loud mouths act out in a passionate way. Ask Yoko Ono...

Lena
09-20-2007, 06:51 PM
Right so let anyone be a disruptive fuckhead as long as he isn't a physical danger?
Wtf...

Your a disruptive fuckhead. I will have you tasered. Does that make any sense?

PaigeDWinter
09-20-2007, 06:56 PM
Ok ok... that e-fuckin-nuff. Thread closed. >:(