What is going on with the terrible inter-discourse here!?!?

Right now I'm involved in a debate in one of the threads involving the video tape of the Utah trooper tasing a motorist.

In this thread I have tried to offer insight into this tasing that many people may not have an understanding about when it comes to policing and officer safety.

For the record, I am a 100 percent strident liberal, working in a conservative world, with a high amount of attention devoted to police officer safety.

In trying to offer insight, I have been called a Nazi, fascist, pig and accused of wanting to "disappear" American citizens.

This is ridiculous, immature and quite disappointing. I thought we were supposed to be the party of ideas, tolerance and insight. I'm a big boy and can defend myself, but I refuse to allow people to label me as such and have taken the appropriate measure by alerting the administrators, but it is still disappointing to see such a level of hatred directed toward police when trying to offer insight about training and police officer safety.

The topic of a thread sort of sets the agenda.

labeling a Du'er with "fascist", "Nazi" or having a desire to have American's "disappeared" is inexcusable.

I can't recall any time I have resorted to such acts and don't think I ever would and refuse to accept it.

What adds to the disappointment is liberal cops have such an opportunity here to pass along insights to the conservative mind (because we work with so many of these people) but when you get replies like that, it's so easy to just move on and shake your head and ask why bother.

There's nothing new about the nastiness of the 'net. It was here before the Internet became popular and hasn't improved with nicknames.

The extremes are ... well, extreme. We continue to hold useful discourse among ourselves and ignore the riff raff, or better yet, have a giggle at their expense. Like their dull barbs, it's harmless.

On its best days the internet is not a polite medium. One tends to get polite responses from people with good social skills and impolite responses from people who are only polite when being polite is socially reinforced. On the internet, you get more feedback and thus more attention when you are not polite.

I prescribe liberal application of the ignore button. You stand a good chance of blocking out a freeper troll.

I also suggest counting the responses and categorizing them as being either constructive or pissy. I think you'll find that the constructive responses are far more numerous than your first impression might be.

wouldn't be calling you names and consider myself fairly tolerant of other's opinions, but never in a million years will I think that cop was within his rights to tase that man. So I'm defending the victim, too.

This seems to me one of those frequently encountered situations where both parties handled themselves pretty poorly. Disobeying the orders of a police officer will get you unpleasant consequences, always.

That's why we have statutes on the books for interfering with or refusing to submit to an officer carrying out his official duties.

Both parties handled themselves poorly, but refusing to sign a speeding ticket is no justification for escalating the sitation to physical violence, which is precisely what the officer in question did.

That escalated the situation to violence. The officer probably did botch the presentation of the ticket, and the matter of signing it. But once the man defied a direct order the fat was in the fire.

The first violent act in this chain of events was the officer's tasing of this individual, and the officer's decision to respond in that manner to the subject's choice to walk away is what escalated the situation to violence. Walking away from an officer is neither a violent act nor an escalation to violence.

While both were out of line, it was the officer's conduct alone that escalated the situation to a whole different (and disproportionate) level.

That is just how it is, and certainly how they are trained nowadays. The only reason for the man to return to his vehicle would be flight from the scene, or to secure arms for a fight at it, and the officer would be under trained instruction to prevent either. No city kid would have made that mistake.

The officer has the taser in this guy's face before he even turns to walk back to the vehicle, and when he does, he does so at a snail's pace. As one of the posters below pointed out, the officer could have handled this any number of ways (telling him he was under arrest is just one), but instead he did what he was obviously itching to do the whole time -- he tased him.

To compound the situation, as soon as the officer tased the driver, the passenger jumped out of the vehicle and ran towards the scene. The officer's lucky the passenger didn't escalate the situation further herself -- if she'd been armed, it would have been a predictable result. It's clear the officer was not concerned for his own safety -- if he had been, he never would have provoked the passenger that way without knowing whether or not the passenger was armed.

To draw a parallel to another subject I know you've been paying attention to lately, this officer was Joe Horn in a uniform with a taser instead of a shotgun.

The driver behaved in a manner guaranteed to raise the hackles of a police officer, particularly a lone officer.

The officer behaved poorly in not explaining the consequences of not signing the ticket.

But from the moment the driver refused to sign, he was under arrest, and he did not co-operate with the arrest.

Those are just the facts of life. It is quite likely the driver had not had much interaction previously with police, and made the mistakes inexperience makes.

it doesn't "open you" to violence as a legitimate, proportionate response -- it exposes you to the risk that overzealous cops will overstep the bounds of their authority in a violent way, just as this officer did.

The officer was not overstepping his bounds to effect the arrest when the man refused to sign, and was within his bounds to use force necessary to secure compliance with the arrest.

The officer behaved poorly in declining to explain the consequences of not signing, and giving the driver a chance to re-think his position.

The driver behaved very poorly denying he had seen a glaringly obvious sign, and demanding that the officer walk back with him to determine if the sign was actually there. He stood on 'rights' he does not actually have: he has no right to refuse to receive a citation, or satisfy himself on the spot he actually deserves it; he certainly has no right to refuse to comply with an officer arresting him.

They felt justified as well.

I get pulled over.
I am presented with a ticket.
I refuse to sign it.
I'm asked to get out of the car. I do, for the opportunity it affords to demonstrate to the officer that he's lying.
I'm asked again to sign the ticket.
I refuse.
I'm asked to turn around, presumably so I can be arrested.
I refuse and walk back to the car.

My actions are incompatible with being a citizen in a nation of laws.

I've watched the video. I can imagine improved tactics that might have encouraged the driver to sign the ticket, but failing that, I'm not sure what the officer is supposed to do.

On the road, the cops are the boss. Sign the damn ticket and make your argument in court.

What are the officer's choices?
1) taser
2) gun
3) wrestling match
4) let the driver pull away and chase the car with the pregnant wife inside
5) laws are for suckas

Is the taser the least perilous choice? Assuming he can't cajole mr asshole driver guy into signing the ticket, maybe.

The officer made it into a physical confrontation. Your option 3 would be a better one, too. There was no 'peril' involved, until the taser was used.

not tasered. I think the use of them is obscene, especially for 'crimes' of this magnitude. The cop got a new toy and couldn't wait to play with it, and this seems to be happening way too often for my taste. I wonder how everyone would feel if the man had died as a result of this corporal punishment?

With a person who is defying an order to halt?

If he does not comply with an order in this situation, surely you would grant some physical means must be employed.

tasers, do you suppose the cop would have just shot him, or perhaps handled it through the mail as usually happens when someone is caught speeding via a camera, or devised a less drastic means of punishment?

And the cop's cute little remark to the other cop, 'took a ride with the taser' was really impressive, as if he was bragging about it.

Again, I think tasers are being used unnecessarily, especially in this case.

Once the man refused to sign, he seems to have opened himself to arrest under local laws, which the officer attempted to effect. The law may be poor; the officer's conduct was certainly poor from the start. But it remains the case that heading back for the vehicle and not halting is a very poor move in such a situation.

following is from blogger digby who says it better than I can. I'm just astonished so many people are willing to give up their freedoms because a cop is involved.


http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/you-gotta-ask-me-nicely-by-digby-when.html

snip//

The icing on the cake comes at the end of the video when the officer LIES to his own colleague about the encounter, clearly stating that he verbally warned Massey he was going to tase him, as is the law, when there was no warning whatsoever.

Mr Massey is planning to file a lawsuit against the Utah Highway Patrol. He says he was already slowing down as he approached the 40 mile per hour sign in the construction zone outside of vernal. All charges except for the speeding ticket have been dropped.

This amazing video reveals how eroded civil and constitutional rights have now become. The officer had no legal right to make Massey sign any document he did not understand.


Police in the country are now allowed to torture speeders by the side of the highway in order to get them to comply. The only difference between this officer slugging the speeder in the stomach and putting 50,0000 volts of electricity in him is that the latter doesn't leave any marks. The intent, the pain and the goose-stepping authoritarian message are exactly the same.

Word to the wise. Do not ever question the police, no matter whether they are violating your rights, ignoring the constitution or breaking the law. It is perfectly legal for them to torture you on the spot if you do.

I'm feeling so free I can hardly breathe.

We don't like fisticuffs, of course, for the poor policemen, but tasers carry unacceptable risks.

My understanding is that the cop refused to tell him how fast he'd been going--or rather how fast the cop was going to claim he'd been going--and that would imply the information wasn't on the ticket either.

Therefore it seems to me that signing that ticket would have been a very, very bad idea indeed.

In any case, tasing was a ridiculous overreaction, and that cop needs to find a new line of work. Perhaps he could sign on as a prison guard in a high security prison, where he'd be dealing with persons of his own caliber day in and day out.

But the driver botched his end as well, and once it comes to the point of defying an officer's order to halt, bad things are going to happen.

It may well be this officer is not suited to the work, and should find another line of employment, where he is not cloaked in authority and arms.

a threatening manner is not considered reasonable force.

Whether or not he should have signed the ticket "Ma'am" is irrelevant when it comes to escalation of force on behalf of the officer.

The officer should have *first* attempted to use the control hold techniques (twist lock, etc.) he was taught in the academy *before* he pulled out his taser and used it.

The driver was not screaming and shouting and cursing and threatening and physically resisting and running.

We're talking about an infraction stop.

And shame on the officer for joking it up with the other cop who showed up.


edit...typo

Having engaged in it several times as an adult, my preference would be to employ something effective at some distance, were it available....

that's part of the job as a law enforcement officer.

This was a vehicle stop for speeding involving a male (who was not a huge guy and was not acting irate) who had a pregnant wife in the passenger seat, and maybe other kids in the car.

You don't drop someone with the taser for non-compliance.

There are specific steps when it comes to escalating force.

You stand with gun side away and attempt to control the subject using the control holds you're taught in the academy.

Or you have the subject sit in his vehicle and radio for another unit to assist.

That trooper is not qualified to hold that position if he can't deal with that type of situation without needing his taser.

People are dying from getting tased. You don't shoot 50,000 volts through someone who refuses to sign a ticket, without at least attempting other compliance measures.

Where the officer was outnumbered, and could have had a reasonable fear of great desperation, or the producing of weapons from an unsecured vehicle, a course that minimizes chance is the one likely to be chosen, and probably suggested by department training.

The driver should have signed the ticket, and gone on his way.

believe cops have the right to taser anyone who argues a ticket as long as there's another passenger in the vehicle.

That's ridiculous. Departments don't train officers to taser people simply because they're outnumbered and there's a chance someone is armed.

It's a dangerous job, and if you sign up to do it, you understand the risks of vehicle stops -- one of the most dangerous situation for a police officer, along with domestic violence calls.

Of course the driver should have signed the ticket since it's not an admission of guilt. But he didn't, and that officer should have attempted to detain him without the use of the taser first.

There's a reason we don't see tons of these videos, and that's because most officers are able to handle the situation professionally.

Strikes me as something it is reasonable to expect would occur, given the behavior of the driver, compounded by the lack of professionalism of the officer at the start.

Another reason we do not see more of this sort of video is because people generally behave themselves better when stopped by police officers than this driver did.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Because, of course, so many Americans will pull out a weapon and start firing it over a speeding ticket. Especially somebody whose background you just checked.

http://www.vimeo.com/183769

The video above is from the car camera of an officer who was shot during "a routine traffic stop".

Presumably this was in pre-taser days.

A subject who is asked to turn around to be arrested and instead walks back to his car is a hazardous situation.

like not pulling over? Would that then be worthy of an on the spot firing squad?

How many states require someone cited for speeding to sign the ticket? I can tell you that no state where I have lived has that requirement.

Anyone know?

You can have someone sign as an "I-Bond" or take their license or even take a cash bond (which is often times discouraged due to the possibility of someone making claims of inappropriate behavior). As many have suggested, signing is not an admission of guilt, only a promise to either pay the fine or go to court.

Now, before the advent of police car computers, it was common for police to take licenses, then staple them to tickets and after the motorist got them back, later on if stopped again, police officers would look for staple holes for insight of the driving history of the motorist (staples meant prior tickets). Now days the data is all ready there.

if you don't, you can be and wil be taken to jail

He also could have brought the unsigned ticket to court
and there are other options to not signing the ticket.

What the idiot cop did was a disgrace!! :grr:

The cop is trained to handle this situation. The driver is an amateur.
Taser use happened solely because the officer failed to use his words, first to explain that the signing was required and not an admission of guilt, then subsequently by asking the driver to step out of the car and then asking him put his hands behind him - not one word announcing that he was under arrest.
He then pointed what looks like a gun at him --still no notice that he was under arrest. Finally, he uses the taser on him because the man was walking away. Simply stating that both parties handled themselves poorly makes it sound fair and balanced. It was not.

anti-semitic. It'll happen. It's the internet. Just ignore.

Hee hee.

It's the asshole cops that make it to youtube.

If police officers are so paranoid about their safety at the obvious detriment of the people they claim to serve, then maybe they should have gotten a job in accounting or some such. Some cops are just trigger-happy pussies.

you see countless and I mean countless, videos and films of what can happen when a person gets back to their vehicle involuntarily, it changes your perspective.

For example, in a nearby town, a young officer went to serve a warrant on a local elderly man at his home. After the elderly man answered, the young officer mistakenly allowed the man to return into his home. The elderly man then shot the officer through the door, stole the officer's squad car and then went on a killing spree. He ended up killing another couple and is now on death row. These sort of things happen all the time.

And believe me, I am not defending any sort of clear brutality committed by any officer. Only pointing out, the man was not tased for refusing to sign a ticket. He was tased for not following the commands of the officer and attempting to return to the vehicle.

Would it have been ok for the cop to use his pistol and shoot the motorist dead?

That would not have been an appropriate level in the "use of force continuum" and is pure hyperbole.

He would have been allowed to use something like "pepper spray" or another type of force such as arm locks or pressure points.

Properly trained officers would not use deadly force with what was observed in that clip.

But so too should training be aimed towards balance and honing those social and psychological skills that would allow police to defuse situations, while being more effective at identifying risk behaviors. Just as they do with use of guns, (at least from what I've been told), which includes reaction training to real armed versus unarmed assailants. Is this only done in larger police departments and academies? :shrug:


Don't feel attacked... Good police officers are very much appreciated and respected. But just as lawyers and doctors must "police their own," so too must law enforcement officials.

"But just as lawyers and doctors must "police their own," so too much law enforcement officials."

Too often they don't police there own, but rather try to cover up the situation and/or investigate themselves which leads to more suspicion by the general public. Any infraction should be investigated by an outside agency that has the knowledge to do a proper investigation.

That, and the arrogance of power which pervades throughout the law enforcement community.

A number also have personalities that make it difficult for them to understand and apply the keys to successful interaction with police, success being defined as sleeping at home that night instead of in the tank.

On the other hand, police often do themselves no favors in their interactions with the public, not only on the street but in forums like this one. There is a tendency to presume a fellow officer behaved rightly, and to seek to shield a fellow officer from consequences, seemingly no matter what he or she may have done. But we all know police do not always behave properly, do not always exercise the best judgement in situations they confront, and sometimes flat out abuse their authority. Just as we also all know police officers in many instances show great understanding and even sensitivity and sympathy in their engagements with the public. Anyone with much experience of encounters with the police will have seen a very wide spectrum of behaviors.

and your reply is the exact type of reply I expect here at DU. The type I don't expect is that of being called a "Nazi", "fascist" or advocating the desire to see citizens "disappeared".

And when one lives in a world where fellow citizens are attacked, assaulted, maimed and killed simply because of an occupation, the view tends to be quite different. Especially when the circumstances surrounding these attacks vary from anything from returning to a squad car to letting motorist return to his vehicle involuntarily.

Would you also agree that the officer may well have botched the earlier portions of the traffic stop, and might have been able to secure compliance with the need to have the ticket signed by polite firmness in the first place? That seems to be the point at which the incident began to head south for all concerned.

however, one other thing people are not taking into account is the road trooper was all alone and from the audio, the driver was having none of the troopers explanations and kept interrupting him. Also, at one point the driver wanted the trooper to take the driver back to the speed signs. That is what court is for.

But my main contention is, the man was being placed under arrest by being told to turn around and put his hands behind his back, did not comply and attempted to return to his vehicle.

Now, in this day and age of enlightenment, I find it most likely almost any American knows what "turn around and put your hands behind your back" means. Especially since a lot of people seem to be pointing out the motorist appeared to be intelligent.

It does seem as if he allowed the driver to get under his skin, and was itching to make an arrest: neither of these things is either professional or appropriate.

He did not explain to the driver the consequences of not signing the citation, making clear to him that not doing so would result in arrest. The man was from out of state, he may not have known the local regulations, and the officer should not have assumed that he did.

The officer did not actually state he was placing the man under arrest, merely ordered him out of the vehicle, and to turn and put his hands behind his back. The driver, doubtless someone who views himself as a law-abiding citizen, probably did not realize he was under arrest, that being a thing that happens only to other, criminal sorts of people, and might well have behaved differently at that point if he had been explicitly informed of the fact he was under arrest.

The order to turn around and put your hands behind you is not equivalent to the statement, "You are under arrest." Officers on occassion hand-cuff persons who they are not placing under arrest to prevent unruly behavior while sorting a matter out, and loose them once they are satisfied of calm behavior and know who is who and what is what. A citizen should not have to infer from some physical act he or she is under arrest, but is entitled to assume a state of freedom until explicitly informed otherwise.

Absolutely, Magistrate....:thumbsup:

At best, it's a tough, dangerous job that requires judgment and training to make appropriate decisions with a minimum of time and information. At worst, it's an opportunity for people with some neuroses to act out. Police power (like military power) is necessary, not desirable in and of itself. The best get far too little recognition or compensation ... and the worst will always reflect on ALL who wear the same uniforms. It's the inherent characteristic of uniforms that all who wear them are sullied by some who wear them. No matter whether it's police, military, nurses, or McDonald's staff ... a uniform creates the deliberate perception of "all alike" - NOT to be treated as individuals.

Altogether too many gravitate to uniforms and emblems in order to personally benefit from the 'investment' in reputation made by others who preceded them. It's "fair" then to accept the good with the bad. It's also reasonable to expect that each and every individual is obliged to make their own investment in the perception of the uniform - and NOT expect to gain the sole benefit (or immunity from blame) of their own good behavior.

As our society is more and more infused by people in uniform, whether corporate or governmentm we will see a greater and greater trend in treating individual human beings as commodities - ALL sharing a broad brush regard. It's deliberate. "It comes with the territory."

the problem in all walks of life as you stated.... It therefore is so important that the good police officers do not try to cover for the bad ones!

I'd be less than honest if I didn't acknowledge that my initial attraction to becoming an officer in the Coast Guard was the "automatic" benefit I'd receive from wearing the uniform was from the investment in BS&T of those who'd worn it before me. It's a kind of "theft" - or "inheritance." I was willing to take the time and make the efforts - toe 'earn' the entitlement - but soon learned that I'm not psychologically adaptive to the military/authoritarian subculture. Orders/hazing: I took it but didn't feel 'right' dishing it out. Later, as I served in the Army as a draftee, I saw yet another 'face' of it and realized (losers, heroes, psychos, My Lai, baby-killers, parades, etc.) that once I wore the uniform I'd be getting BOTH the good and the bad ... and it had absolutely NOTHING to do with my own individuality. People in uniform must accept that "social contract" - that their best is an investment in the esteem given to what the uniform represents, and that the "bad" gets distributed in the same way. It's NO accident that it's called a uniform - because it demands uniformity of all credits and all debits, no matter what the individual culpability may be. No matter what the uniform, the bargain is the same.

We, as a society, create the very necessity of this subcultural condition. The buck stops with the citizens of a democracy. We're the bosses. If we evade our duties to be "owner-operators" of our own government, then our employees will steal us blind - steal our liberties, steal our freedoms, and steal our common wealth. We have nobody else to blame. Those serving in uniform have surrendered their liberties and even their entitlements to the credits for their own individual efforts. They serve; they do not control.

... it will make them smile as it did me.

:hi:

:evilgrin:

Your posts upstream from this one had me wondering. You seemed to grudgingly admit to the officer's inappropriate procedure vis-a-vis the ticket, while at the same time defending without question the use of a taser (with no warning, no explanation, no notification that the individual was under arrest) and when questioned, suggested in the past, use of a gun or "swing" of a nightstick would have been substituted. I don't know where you got your police training, but use of a nightstick on an individual who is not resisting, for a misdemeanor traffic violation, upon someone who has not been notified that they are under arrest and the need for compliance is sheer brutality and use of a gun (even if it goes off accidentally) under the same scenario, is very likely second degree murder.

With this posting, I'm more reassured, but heavens, you had me very concerned... very....

BTW, I think most prefer not to be referred to Sir or Ma'am (or Madam) on a political forum. While, I know it is ingrained in military (and some law enforcement) training and am sure you have the best of intentions, in this context I doubt I'm the only one that finds it extremely patronizing. :shrug:

PLUS I don't like the title "The Magistrate". I found his/her comments on the situation very disturbing...then suddenly...FINALLY...change to a more logical stance.

incidents such as this one simply reinforce the prejudice. Cops are pretty much like anyone else--there are good and bad among them. Unfortunately, the good and bad alike carry weapons and it is ordinary citizens who suffer when the bad misuse them.

"Officer safety" does not trump citizen safety, and the supposition that it does, that nearly anything can be allowed to assure the safety of the officers, it leads to a backlash...and justifiably so.

Incidents such as this one are becoming more and more common. Whether it's because the cops who are naturally bullies and cowards have been handed a shiny new weapon that rarely kills, or because they're beginning to sense the inherent dislike and distrust and acting in response to that, I cannot say.

I, personally, loathe abuse of authority more than just about any crime and I believe that any cop that abuses that authority should not only be disciplined, but should immediately become an ex-cop. If we were more stringent in culling the bullies from the ranks, maybe a better balance could be struck between the police and the citizens once again.

Until then, when otherwise good cops rise up to defend indefensible acts to protect their own, it is my belief that the whole system has been corrupted and should be reconsidered from the ground up.

But I still can't help myself.

straight off one of the RW websites that shall not be named on DU.

And it's easy to see why folks are so pissed at this particular cop. He took a nonviolent situation and escalated it to a violent situation and for NO reason related to officer safety -- just because he enjoys being a bully (which is probably why he wanted this job in the first place).

No sympathy from this quarter. If you want adulation for supporting a cop who tasers someone for not signing a ticket, you know where those websites are.

took place at the Vancouver Airport, ya might want to do some research on it. Tasing is right now under serious question in both the US and Canada.. (and of course from this case) around the world. The strange part is, most don't believe that it was the double tasing that killed the Polish Immigrant.
With four large police officers sitting on you, and one with his full weight on your neck, it certainly might have been the killing factor.

The poor immigrant looked like he could have been easily handcuffed by a woman cop without any assistance.

This guy had just past thru customs and obviously they would had, had Polish speaking people in that area. Why the hell didn't someone get a Polish speaking person to come from Customs and Immigration to translate?

Polish-speaking airport worker wasn't asked to help
Nathan VanderKlippe, National Post
Published: Monday, November 19, 2007

VANCOUVER -- Minutes after Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski picked up a Vancouver airport computer and threw it at a glass wall, a Polish-speaking airport worker wandered into the airport's operations centre to pick up some paperwork.

Slovakian immigrant Karol Vrba was in the room on Oct. 14 when the pair of calls came in reporting Mr. Dziekanski's erratic behaviour, but was never asked to help, even though he is conversant in both Polish and Russian, the language bystanders told authorities the 40-year-old Pole was speaking.

"I feel really upset because I saw that video of what they did to him and it could have been prevented. Definitely," he said Monday.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2b9a7f10-03d9-4616-b282-a207afbe57ac

And more importantly, this man would be alive today if only a little common sense had prevailed.

thread that follows their online story, there were a couple of seemingly very rational police officers posting.

NEITHER defended what the officer did, but rather explained how use of skills derived from proper training (as they received) would have defused the situation. For example, telling the motorist that he was obligated by law to sign the ticket, but signing was NOT an admission of guilt. That if he did not comply he would be put under arrest. That he WAS under arrest, before tasing him!

The absence of such discourse seemed to suggest to the motorist that the officer was out of control. For this reason, it might explain why he sought to simply leave. But, from the officer's POV, that might have suggested the motorist was going back to the car for a weapon.

I accept that explanation of what might have transpired. But, I agree with those officers posting, that this particular Utah officer acted inappropriately and should be disciplined. At a minimum, they need additional training on the allowable use of tasers and (as in the case of guns) how to AVOID having to use them.

I respect police officers. They have a very tough and challenging job. But, it is a job that must be done with care and thoughtfulness if any of us are to feel the benefits of living in a true democracy.

the situation could and should have been deescalated using verbal commands

Backup was obvoous as well, but the cop went too far too fast

He escalated...

fictitious names?

All kinds of people come here, claiming all kinds of identities, including: Democrat, open-minded, rational, liberal, tolerant, informed, intelligent . . . . None of which is necessarily true and much of which is intentionally untrue.

You can't be a liberal! Because you aren't the most extreme of all liberals! So your liberalism doesn't count at all, and you're actually a Nazi!

:sarcasm: which I note here, to make it clear. I'm not insulting you. DU has lately become full of Freepers of the Left. Smugness is a disease here, and too many see liberalism as a gigantic pissing match.

More people have died from police tasers in the last year than have died from being shot by police bullets. What does that say to you?

and I'm not making excuses for those that abuse or wrongly use these tools. And if someone is determined to have abused or use them incorrectly or criminally, then they should be dealt with.

But what I can state, is when properly used, the Taser has become a very useful tool.

As this case clearly shows, it has become a substitute for clear rational DISCUSSION and common sense (use on the elderly, wheel-chair bound, developmentally disabled children, non-English speaking confused foreigners, and worse of all, those experiencing seizures or diabetic hypoglycemic crisis). These incidents are no longer so uncommon to ignore as just "freak" events. They signal an incredible drop in or total lack of appropriate training-- perhaps focal in nature-- but widespread just the same.

Fear makes people use the guns they have at their immediate disposal, rather than to calmly assess the situation. Good training of police officers can offset that natural response. We have not accomplished the same level of training for these supposed non-lethal methods. In fact, the very presumption that they are "nonlethal" is likely adding to the hair-trigger tendency to draw and USE them before any other options or tactics.

... than died from police bullets 20 years ago.

Tasers can be lethal force as can, (as is suggested by the example of the Polish immigrant in Vancouver airport upthread) being kneeled upon by a 200+ pound officer.

the cause of death. Maybe instead it was suffocation.

Many pathologists on many autopsies have discovered the cause of death has not been solely caused by the taser, but by a variety of factors - drugs in the body, poor health or some other defect.

And I can recall similar arguments several years ago in regard to "pepper spray."

far more people have died from use of lethal force...

There is a reason why these tools are called less than lethal.

Problem is, if you take away the taser (which can have lethal consequences) and the baton... and you leave the cop only a gun... then all situations will be solved iwht a gun... and more people will die.

That is not to say that these tools are not used correctly by officers some of the time

In some cases due to real poor training, in ohters bad leadership and lastly bad judgement

(In this case, I;d say really bad judgement)

No insight into officer training will excuse the lying Utah trooper who tased this man apropos of nothing then told his later-arriving colleague that the man was trying to "bolt".

More people have been mistreated and over billed by lawyers - who have the power. But the few who have needed a lawyer to right a wrong make clear their needed role.

Police have the power of force, and we consent to it to live in a lawful society. But many more people experience the misuse of that power at the hands of police.

So the slang and ridicule flies out easily.


my .02

Okay. This is exactly what I mean by people needing a wider knowledge of a subject before jumping to conclusions.

By you posting that video, I am assuming that you do not know the full story of that particular trooper.

I no longer have the link to that particular trooper, however, the trooper in that video had a history of bad behavior and was under scrutiny for his behavior. What he did in that video was completely orchestrated by him to try and illustrate he was not the type of trooper he was accused of. It did not work and he was later fired for his past behavior.

If I can find a link to the real story, I'll post it.

And also, if you show this video to a variety of policing trainers, they will tell you if this were an accurate portrayal, the trooper actually was TOO restrained and the driver should have been arrested long before in the traffic stop.

and exactly what I really expect here.

Circumstances notwithstanding, that driver made a suicidal decision.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:


Yeah, sure, all lefties are anti-law and want only to "coddle" criminals... Those RW talking points are so old your posting may soon fade from sight.

they happen to be Dems as am I. WTF else would I be here? I'm just sick of reading this BS about how all cops are awful and how tasers are the worst invention of the 21st Century. It is still better than getting SHOT! What about that don't some of you seem to get? Yeah there are bad cops but there are many more good ones. There are bad apples in every group. But it seems that way more than a few people here are very much anti-cop, pro-criminal. It's disturbing to me to see this attitude and to see it upheld and repeated almost every single day. I know I'm not alone but those of us who do speak out are branded Republicans and "trolls" for not going along with the prevailing mindset of the rest of you. Well fuck that. Call me what you like. Report me to the moderator. I really don't give a shit at this point. I believe what I believe and I KNOW that not all cops are bad and that tasers have saved more lives than they've taken.

And oh by the way, thank you for proving what the OP was trying to say to be true.

NO one here is stating that "all cops are bad." Nor do I find anyone that is genuinely "pro-criminal."

Your hyperbole to make some kind of point only shows you have no facts behind you. And, yes, that is how the RW argues: NO facts? Throw out outrageous accusations... Truth be damned.

I had people call me a fascist, Nazi and state I wanted to make people "disappear" as in Guatemala.

So, some of what the poster claimed is not that wrong.

It is inevitable with a forum as large as DU, that we'd get a few. But most who express some discomfort re: police do so because they have witnessed the acts of the bad actors. We all know that they do exist. All too often, police forces immediately jump to the defense of those "bad apples" without thorough investigation...

But, I think there has been a lot of civil and useful discussion on this thread where it is clear that we are not anti-cop and we truly understand that the job is risky and difficult. There is a continuum of policing, just as there is the continuum in response to potential threats. Extremes on either continuum are what most here wish to avoid.

I work in public health and in the course of communicable disease control, have spent quite a lot of time working with both state and local correctional facilities and their staff. Most recently, I spent the better part of two months daily with senior sheriff's staff--all who had completed SWAT training together and, as a team, had comprised the incident command response to Columbine. I had the opportunity to discuss those challenges (and the incredible impact on them) as well as to view their current ongoing professionalism dealing with those incarcerated in one of Colorado's largest jail facilities. I had respect for law enforcement before, but I can tell you that it only increased. I observed that mistakes in terms of their staffs were identified and immediately addressed and while safety was always paramount, so too was remembering that everyone they deal with is a member of their community--including those in jail.

As we look down the road to the DNC here in Denver, I can only hope that Denver's Police Department will likewise highlight their professionalism and measured response to the protests that are sure to accompany... We shall see...

No, cops are not "popular", yes a lot of us are on the wrong side of someone's laws at one point or another. Several cops in my family, too and I have an insight as to how they behave and think. All of it is not Ideal. As for being criminal lovers? oh please.

I've worked along side officers as a member of EMS

I have been in my fair share of hot scenes... hell a couple times I would have been justified in using lethal force in self defense... yes an axe qualifies as a deadly weapon so does a broken bottle wih jaged edges.

My family has a fair number of police officers

And that officer went too far

We both know it.

HIs safety ZONE was NOT compromised.

The officer escalated well before he needed to escalate to non lethal restraining device

You know that and I know that

Now for the PSA... if you are stopped and issued a ticket, that ticket is your release from an arrest situation... not signing it means you can and most likely will be taken to jail

And the officer should have gone on radio and asked for backup... but the taser, he went too far from what the tape shows.

That said, you are right... many folks 'round these parts hate all pigs, even those of us who worked as paramedics... since authority figures are disliked and there are good reasons for that. Some police forces are not professional and definitely some police officers do not behave in a profesional manner either

Now contrast that with the officer who got screamed at by old lady who also destroyed her ticket... and he remained stoic throughout the encounter. Now THAT is an example of profesional behavior. In the end she took her ticket... in pieces, as pissed as she was. That officer DEESCALATED the situation...

It was hard for me to hear all the transmission, but I do believe he did ask for another car. But you have to remember - for road cops, back up can be a long, long way off.

Lastly, what I tried to point out in the other thread (this one focused on some of the terrible discourse here), is the man was being placed under arrest (turn around and put your hands behind your back)when he started to return to his vehicle. Now, my main issue does not deal with how the events got to where they were (and I'm not claiming the events prior to the tasing were not important), but to point out, it is a terrible officer safety violation to allow a motorist to return to his vehicle involuntarily. And the man was under arrest, whether he explicitly was told or not (there is no law or requirement to tell a person, "Hey, you are under arrest." Many times, for tactical reasons, the bracelet will go on before the person is told. And for that other one about Miranda - Miranda warnings deal with in custody interrogations).

I don't care how many friends, family or associates you have that are cops - properly trained cops do not allow people to stick their hands in their pants at will, return to vehicles where a gun could be hidden under a seat or go back into a house without an escort.

where I can tell you, a judge wil throw the charges or most of the charges.

And it is not just relatives in law enforcement, I have been in those tactical situations.

Seen plenty of mistakes by cops too...

But in my view he went too far.

As to backup.... yep, it can be far away, but that was a situation where he should have reqiuested backup earlier

We simply don't agree and I am betting this tape will end up in Academies across the country

As to the obligation to tell somebody you are under arrest, clearly, yes there is a legal requirement

And hell I didn't even raise Miranda, you did....

But the officer HAD an obligation to tell the arrestee what he was being arrested for...

Lemme see... not complying iwth orders and interfering with a police officer, for starters.

It's not there. You do not have to tell a person prior to the actual arrest that they are "under arrest". Sometimes it is even not smart and tactically safe to do such a thing. About the only requirement may be to sustain a charge of "resisting" arrest. Heck, in Illinois, by statute, a person is prohibited from even resisting an unlawful arrest.

But think of what you are suggesting - a police officer is chasing a suspect running from a bank alarm. Are you suggesting before he catches the person and handcuffs the person that he must first say, "Hey, moron, you are under arrest." No, one does not have that requirement.

What you might be blending is the admissibility of statements made AFTER an arrest, which is a common error with that of an arrest and Miranda.

And a judge probably will toss these charges out, but most likely out of political and public reaction, instead of letting the court case go forward.

Lastly, in this day and age, I don't think it is hard for a person to realize that when told to turn around and put his or her hands behind his or her back, that its so a cop can shake your hand.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Would like to read more.

Amnesty International points out more than 245 people in the United States have died, many from cardiac arrest after being shocked with Tasers.

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/10/are-tasers-safe.html




I'm looking for the one I read the other day that said 300. I think it included Canada




http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr200022007


http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR511542007?open&of=eng-USA
Of 291 reported deaths, AI has so far identified only 25 individuals who were reportedly armed with any sort of weapon when they were electro-shocked; such weapons did not include firearms.

Of 291 reported deaths, AI has so far identified only 25 individuals who were reportedly armed with any sort of weapon when they were electro-shocked; such weapons did not include firearms.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAMR511542007?open&of=eng-USA




USA
Amnesty International’s concerns about Taser®(1) use: Statement to the U.S. Justice Department inquiry into deaths in custody
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr511512007

and it went over 300 last year.

:hi:

the officer acted very recklessly and unprofessionally. Sorry, but it happens. Thank you, FWIW, for all your insight.

and you don't understand why you are running into a shitstorm of "terrible inter-discourse" in response?

OK.

Tell you what, when you work in an occupation where circumstances range from the calm to the unpredictable, where people can go from rational to crazy, where one has no idea what is at the back of that dark alley or where courageous people run toward the sounds of gunfire instead of run from them, then come back and try to explain to me why people should not use a tool, that when properly used, is of tremendous help.

Several years ago people like you were screaming the same thing about pepper spray, before that it was nightsticks.

Now, you show me where I have advocated torture or killing people.

In fact, I demand you do it or keep your mouth shut and have the courtesy of taking people at the words they type rather than typing lying words taken completely out of context and in a manner to libel someone.

When someone suggests I'm for torture and killing people in the way the previous poster did, then it's time to put up or shut up.

I'm sick of people here accusing others who have a contrary opinion of being like those of the lowest forms. It's bullshit (unless the person is an obvious freeper, lurker or disruptor) when one DU'er suggests such a thing of a another Du'er and does so by completely twisting the typed words of another poster.

It's immature and absolute crap.

don't even try the lounge.

I've always found the Lounge to be a friendly, fun-loving place to discuss anything that comes to mind. A poster a few years ago referred to the Lounge as "the ultimate cocktail party".

Most of the posters in the Lounge also cross-post in various forums here on DU. You can run into any one of us in our state forums, in various topic and issue forums and even here in GD regularly.

that was years ago.

I don't understand what you are referring to.

I was replying to your comment:
" A poster a few years ago referred to the Lounge as "the ultimate cocktail party". "


Please, I am not here to make enemies. I have no quarrel with you. Earlier today, it was d-e-a-d in the lounge. That is all I meant.

It often comes and goes.

Sometimes you have to catch the Lounge at certain times. Some of the same posters from the beginning of the site are still there, just a bit busy. Myself, I took off nearly 12 weeks from DU due to personal problems.

Like I said, the Lounge has its moments. Sometimes it's packed and you can't keep up, other times it's almost dead.

It was a beautiful day where I live, and it is a holiday week-end. I thought I would see the Lounge the way you described it (or, the way your friend described it). Perhaps, I was not in the right frame of mind. I must say that it seems a tad a clique-ish. I have heard this comment before, so I don't think I am the only one to find it so. There are some genuinely nice people in there, and then there are some who seem to be...quite full of themselves(for lack of a better term).

Peace~TA

PS-I hope this clears up any misunderstanding between us:toast:

As to the cliques-you will find them anywhere, whether on different forums here or IRL. The ones who tend to be the worst offenders are those who have not been here as long as you would imagine. A select few have turned the Lounge into their own personal forum but most are "good people".

The Lounge is a place where you really have to just jump in and get to know the posters. We've had too many newbies post in the Lounge to get their post count up, then begin to disrupt the forums by making obviously "freeper-like" comments. If you saw this happen you'd understand why some tend to speak only to the few posters they really know.

cheers.

The Lounge is full of happy and friendly people. We're the salt of the Earth. So knock it off or I will come over there, rips your legs off, and beat your behind with them!

PS. Hope you're enjoying your non-Euclidean compass!

:hi:

sheesh.:eyes:

:rofl:

:hi:


already a thread over there about how dead it is...my ignore list grows.

I've been called names and insulted when I tried to explain stories related to my professional career too or when someone couldn't see the merit of my position on a topic. It goes with the territory and when it's excessive the alert button works well, as you know from the Utah tasering thread.

was not standing still to any extent, gesticulating in other directions while not acknowledging the moment, etc; when the officer expressed his intent...the driver turned his back on him and began to walk away (he has since admitted on TV that he wasn't aware the officer was holding a gun which seems specious at best in so strange a time in which we live but there it is), he was then tased...

some additional measure of restraint would have appreciated on the part of the officer; some level of enhanced appreciation for matters regarding process and traffic/highway laws would have been appreciated on the part of the driver imo in both respects and in retrospect on both counts, what i think we see is a failure on more than one level

as a CHP, my fiance was shot and later died as the result of a simply traffic stop involving a car with expired tags...the driver, that driver came up with a pistol and so my fiance died,

tasing is now thought to be the quicker answer for too many police actions where officers are less inclined to bust a sweat in the course of performing their duties, some of which involve deescalating scenarios

but we are too close to inviting still greater calamities when we fail to acknowledge the responsibilities many, perhaps even we bring; or should be bringing, to situations that are able to defuse ego driven circumstance in creative ways

two sides to the story as usual. :hi: