Naked guy gets tasered and falls down to his death

[HunterICX]

A Sad ending for this confused guy,:nope:

Police fired a Taser at a naked Brooklyn man armed with only a fluorescent light tube yesterday, sending him falling to his death from a second-floor ledge after he went on a 40-minute rant.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09252008/news/regionalnews/cops_in_nude_taser_slay_130670.htm

(there's a video on the page)

HunterICX

[antikristuseke]

What was the purpuse of tazering him?

[SteamWake]

What was the purpuse of tazering him?

To see if the fluorescent lamp he was holding would light up?

[Skybird]

What was the purpuse of tazering him?
I have reached the opinion that tazers more and more are getting used preemptively and for disciplinary measures. Both is unacceptable. Tazers exclusively should be used in cases of police being attacked by suspects turning clearly violent against them. not following orders fast enough, or sanctionising unwanted behavior, are not sufficient reasons to tazer somebody. the police is not the judge. Doing so is not different to beating up a suspect because of his "suspicious dark skin colour". tazers are meant to be non-lethal weapons of self-defense - not more and not less. what we currently hear with regularity, is a clear abuse of the intention behind their introduction.

[Dowly]

What was the purpuse of tazering him? I have reached the opinion that tazers more and more are getting used preemptively and for disciplinary measures. Both is unacceptable. Tazers exclusively should be used in cases of police being attacked by suspects turning clearly violent against them. not following orders fast enough, or sanctionising unwanted behavior, are not sufficient reasons to tazer somebody. the police is not the judge. Doing so is not different to beating up a suspect because of his "suspicious dark skin colour". tazers are meant to be non-lethal weapons of self-defense - not more and not less. what we currently hear with regularity, is a clear abuse of the intention behind their introduction.

Couldnt agree more! :up:

[Konovalov]

I don't understand how much of a threat one man can pose on a 2nd floor ledge for him to be tazered. :-? On the face of it this strikes me as just plain crazy.

[Mikhayl]

Yeah, some cops seem to think that since it's a (supposedly) non-lethal weapon, then they can use it at will. Morons :nope:

[Letum]

[...]Tazers are meant to be non-lethal weapons of self-defense - not more and not less. what we currently hear with regularity, is a clear abuse of the intention behind their introduction.


^ This with passion!

[goldorak]

A non lethal weapon is an oxymoron.
Damn politically correctness, it will doom us all. :nope:
Weapons are always made to kill, they are desgned for that sole purpose.
Show me a non lethal weapon and I will sell you the golden gate bridge. ;)

[Letum]

Show me a non lethal weapon and I will sell you the golden gate bridge. ;)

I have a assault spoon made out of jelly (Lime flavor).

[Skybird]

A non lethal weapon is an oxymoron.
Damn politically correctness, it will doom us all. :nope:
Weapons are always made to kill, they are desgned for that sole purpose.
Show me a non lethal weapon and I will sell you the golden gate bridge. ;)
The microwave cannon they use for riot control and install on cruise ships as well.
Weapons in testing that fire glue.
Mines not designed to kill but to wound (and bind more of the enemy's personnel to take care of the wounded).
Pepper spray.
Teargas.
Propaganda.

There are so many. Lucky you are that I do not need any bridge. ;)

[Dowly]

Weapons in testing that fire glue.


Lol! I swear I saw a weapon like this in a Judge Dredd comic! :rotfl:(It did work, tho... :hmm:)

[SS107.9MHz]

What was the purpuse of tazering him?
To see if the fluorescent lamp he was holding would light up?

ehEHEHEH IT'S NOT DARK HUMOUR... IT'S http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon3.gif HUMOUR :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:!!!

[Dowly]

What was the purpuse of tazering him?
To see if the fluorescent lamp he was holding would light up?
ehEHEHEH IT'S NOT DARK HUMOUR... IT'S http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon3.gif HUMOUR :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:!!!
LOL :p

[antikristuseke]

Weapons in testing that fire glue.


Lol! I swear I saw a weapon like this in a Judge Dredd comic! :rotfl:(It did work, tho... :hmm:)

A glue firing gun has been in development for years.

[Happy Times]

What was the purpuse of tazering him? I have reached the opinion that tazers more and more are getting used preemptively and for disciplinary measures. Both is unacceptable. Tazers exclusively should be used in cases of police being attacked by suspects turning clearly violent against them. not following orders fast enough, or sanctionising unwanted behavior, are not sufficient reasons to tazer somebody. the police is not the judge. Doing so is not different to beating up a suspect because of his "suspicious dark skin colour". tazers are meant to be non-lethal weapons of self-defense - not more and not less. what we currently hear with regularity, is a clear abuse of the intention behind their introduction.

Couldnt agree more! :up:

x3 Its not ment for that, it is suppose to be replacement for a gun.

[sharkbit]

What was the purpuse of tazering him?

To see if the fluorescent lamp he was holding would light up?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Soda pop came out my nose while reading this!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Dowly]

Weapons in testing that fire glue.

Lol! I swear I saw a weapon like this in a Judge Dredd comic! :rotfl:(It did work, tho... :hmm:)
A glue firing gun has been in development for years.

It's 6-8 years from when I read the comic. :p COPY-CATS! :D

[antikristuseke]

Im not sure which is more surprising, the fact that they are copying a comic book or the fact that you can read :88)

[Fincuan]

As you can see he's able to read and write(or has someone do that for him), but even though I've flown several hours with him in IL2, Teamspeak running and all, I still haven't heard him TALK :rotfl:

[SS107.9MHz]

Man... Just saw the video, what the hell was that officer thinking? What did he think would happen, that he'd just float to the ground after being tased? He just acted out on a guy who was obviously in a psychotic episode, don't the NYPD have psychologists? Damn, thisi is easily involuntary manslaugher if not more...at least from my poor knowledge about US laws...

[Zachstar]

Either the officer will be charged with Manslaughter eventually or he will be sued to nonexistance.

These stun guns were a good idea on paper but in reality instead of being used "Instead of a firearm" they are being used "Instead of an Arm"

Those who go through additional training and lots of time in the books making DAMN sure they know everything about this weapon are the ones that will suffer as these trigger happy *******s eventually get these weapons outlawed.

[SS107.9MHz]

Either the officer will be charged with Manslaughter eventually or he will be sued to nonexistance.

These stun guns were a good idea on paper but in reality instead of being used "Instead of a firearm" they are being used "Instead of an Arm"

Those who go through additional training and lots of time in the books making DAMN sure they know everything about this weapon are the ones that will suffer as these trigger happy *******s eventually get these weapons outlawed.

Yo're assuming the guys mother has the money to do it...

As forthe "instead of an arm" couldn't agrre more... It was exactly the same with that guy in the airport in CAnada or something, some months ago

[Zachstar]

She will have the money. Some group will give it to her and she will sue.

Hopefully, It will not come to that. This is a case on Manslaughter and needs to be handled in a criminal court.

[longam]

He'll get suspended with pay. :doh:

[Task Force]

:nope: Too bad for the guy.:nope: But he souldnt have been doing what he was.:nope:

[goldorak]

:nope: Too bad for the guy.:nope: But he souldnt have been doing what he was.:nope:

And that gives the police the RIGHT to kill him ? :shifty:
What was wrong with simply arresting the poor guy ?
Skybird is correct in his assessment.


I have reached the opinion that tazers more and more are getting used preemptively and for disciplinary measures. Both is unacceptable. Tazers exclusively should be used in cases of police being attacked by suspects turning clearly violent against them. not following orders fast enough, or sanctionising unwanted behavior, are not sufficient reasons to tazer somebody. the police is not the judge

[joegrundman]

I feel sorry for the policeman. In Britain, policemen can kill a guy without any provocation at all and do not need to expect to pay a price

[SS107.9MHz]

:nope: Too bad for the guy.:nope: But he souldnt have been doing what he was.:nope:
He clearly wasn't functioning with the whole of his mental abilities, by the behavior he either suffered from schizophrenia or some sort of developmental disturbance ffrom the Autism spectre ,though I'm inclined for the first... He couldn't be held responsible, he was jus a sick man... it would be like tasing an Alzheimer pacient that had been in a delirious or confusional state...

[1480]

:nope: Too bad for the guy.:nope: But he souldnt have been doing what he was.:nope:

And that gives the police the RIGHT to kill him ? :shifty:
What was wrong with simply arresting the poor guy ?
Skybird is correct in his assessment.


I have reached the opinion that tazers more and more are getting used preemptively and for disciplinary measures. Both is unacceptable. Tazers exclusively should be used in cases of police being attacked by suspects turning clearly violent against them. not following orders fast enough, or sanctionising unwanted behavior, are not sufficient reasons to tazer somebody. the police is not the judge



Lets look at the situation at hand. The man was good size. How many of you heros, do you think, you would need to take that man down safely?



Did you heros even notice where the mental was located? When you consider your answer to the 1st question, it's a fire escape, 10 feet off the ground, probably at most 4 feet wide. These are made of metal bars spaced at 4 inches. That is your footing.

He made threats both verbal and physically to the officers. The US EPA lists the phospher powder/mercury combination a hazardous waste if released from a broken light tube. You think there is a good chance a large and mentally unstable man, armed with an object, when broken can take on the characteristic of a straight razor, poses a real threat to cause great bodily harm or death?

I ask the folks that have never been placed into a no-win situation, what should the officers have done? Im always sickened by monday morning quarterbacks who react after the fact. Put yourselves in their shoes. :yep:

Momma knew her son was disturbed. States have provisions for court ordered mental evaulations, FREE OF CHARGE. Her "sick" son may still alive had she been a parent.

[JHuschke]

One day, there will be more brutal weapons to come besides a Tazer.

[goldorak]

You know the problem with tasers is since they don't "harm" directly the subject we tend to consider them more socially acceptable.
I ask you, what is the difference between tasing the guy and firing on him (not with the intention of killing).
There is no difference whatsoever, just as firing on that guy would be considered absurd, so is tasing.
Calling tasers non lethal weapons makes them socially acceptable.
But the nature of those weapons doesn't change.

A gun can kill, but it can also incapacitate a suspect. Does any sensibile person dare call a gun a non lethal weapon ? :roll:

[Zachstar]

There are times a taser is warranted but those are times where it is also warranted to use a firearm.

[goldorak]

There are times a taser is warranted but those are times where it is also warranted to use a firearm.


I agree with this.
So what advantage does a taser give the police that a firearm doesn't ? :hmm:

[Zachstar]

Well for a good officer he does not have to spend the rest of his life knowing he killed a human being.

[1480]

You know the problem with tasers is since they don't "harm" directly the subject we tend to consider them more socially acceptable.
I ask you, what is the difference between tasing the guy and firing on him (not with the intention of killing).
There is no difference whatsoever, just as firing on that guy would be considered absurd, so is tasing.
Calling tasers non lethal weapons makes them socially acceptable.
But the nature of those weapons doesn't change.

A gun can kill, but it can also incapacitate a suspect. Does any sensibile person dare call a gun a non lethal weapon ? :roll:

Is your real name Annie Oakley? :rotfl:

Shooting to maim is a myth. If I were to discharge my duty weapon, it's to protect my life, another officer's life or civillian's life. Don't know how it is in other countries, but case law has established in the US that using a firearm by police, constitutes deadly force. Besides, do you realize how hard it is to hit center mass from 5 feet away. I do, 90% of police involved shootings happen from 5 feet or less, and the hit percentage is a whopping 30%. (to center mass, the largest presented target)

[1480]

Well for a good officer he does not have to spend the rest of his life knowing he killed a human being.


I really wish this could be true. Sometimes to protect life, we must take life.

As I mentioned before, a no-win situation.

[Zachstar]

It is a no win situation now.

A person is dead

A person is about to be Jailed or sued to Oblivion.

Cops are ever closer to losing the taser.

[Onkel Neal]

You know, in some cases I don't think cops use their smarts as much as they could, or try and be creative. In this case, they probably could have gotten this guy to sit down if they waved a large Pizza from Pappa John's under his nose.

[goldorak]

What strikes me is the absurdity of the whole situation.
If the cops haven't had the tasers and only wore firearms WOULD THEY HAVE FIRED UPON the guy to calm him down ?
I think its safe to say that the police would have done the sensible thing.
Either try to physically calm down this guy or wait for an expert to handle this situation.

[Zachstar]

You know, in some cases I don't think cops use their smarts as much as they could, or try and be creative. In this case, they probably could have gotten this guy to sit down if they waved a large Pizza from Pappa John's under his nose.

Or a gift card to Best Buy.

[1480]

You know, in some cases I don't think cops use their smarts as much as they could, or try and be creative. In this case, they probably could have gotten this guy to sit down if they waved a large Pizza from Pappa John's under his nose.

A story was once related to me about an old timer on the wagon who gets waved down by a citizen stating a man was eating a pigeon in an alley. Him and his rookie partner go to location and sure enough, a very large man is sitting in the alley, half way finshed with a pigeon. Blood, feathers and tissue stuck to his face and lips. He takes another bite when the old timer asks him, "whats going on..." The man stops for a moment and looks at the old timer, and says with a straight face, "I'm eating my chicken dinner, officer, what does it look like?" The old timer knows that this could be a very bad situation and thinking quickly responds, "Is that chicken from Harolds?" "Nah, ain't as juicy as Harolds". "If I had some money I'd of gotten a Harold's #3 with a big coke" "This sh*t is really dry". As the man takes another bite, the old timer directs his partner to walk over to Harold's Chicken and get the #3 meal and large coke. As the partner walks away the man say's to the old timer, "You buying me dinner officer, thats nice of you. But I can't pay you back..." The old timer still thinking on his feet says, "I only ask you to eat it in the back of the wagon, the alderman has a bug up his a$$ about the rat problem, and he believes that eating in alleys is the main culprit." "No problem officer, if you bring me the #3 with a coke, I'll eat it anywhere you tell me. I don't want to get you in trouble with your boss for just being nice to me." The partner brings back the food and drink, the man smiles at the old timer, stands up, and walks into the back of the wagon. The old timer asks him to discard the remains of the "dry chicken" on the ground, gives him his #3 and coke and locks the door.

True story. The guy had murdered three people twenty years before, but was found to be insane. That is why I try not to judge, no two situations are ever the same.

[1480]

What strikes me is the absurdity of the whole situation.
If the cops haven't had the tasers and only wore firearms WOULD THEY HAVE FIRED UPON the guy to calm him down ?
I think its safe to say that the police would have done the sensible thing.
Either try to physically calm down this guy or wait for an expert to handle this situation.

Not sure about NYPD, but we don't have "experts" to handle the situation, we are it. I'm not sure what you mean about 'physically calm down'.

If the guy was using the four foot long glass tube to strike at the officers as it is reported, they would have been more then likely justified in using their firearms to negate the threat. As I stated before, it was a no-win situation.

[joegrundman]

If the guy was using the four foot long glass tube to strike at the officers as it is reported, they would have been more then likely justified in using their firearms to negate the threat
yeah right. you wish to frame the debate with language such as "negate the threat" and now you want to say he deserved to be shot! And furthermore you wish to imply that civilians have no right to pass judgment on the police because blah blah. Don't forget who pays you.

So I suppose if the review commission, or whatever, decides that the policeman involved acted incorrectly in tazing the guy, you'll jump up and say how wrong the commission is, will you?

What was the guy standing there for, anyway? You can't exactly be a threat to anyone standing the way he was, unless you are able to shoot someone with the light bulb. What was the point of the police even trying to talk to him if he deserves to be shot for ranting butt-naked with a flourescent tube. Why not just shoot him from the ground and say Dredd-like "naked ranting with a light bulb is illegal, perp"

The point being the policeman had an objective, which was to talk the guy down. Then presumably he thought he could solve the problem with a taser, without actually thinking through the obvious consequences of his actions.

Guy dies, policeman demonstrated to be profoundly stupid, and with blood on his hands

Because in fact the policeman could have just waited. The guy was no threat, and would either have hurt himself or got cold and hungry and come down voluntarily. {EDIT: that's the win in this no-win situation btw}

But no, can't wait, must do something, how about kill him?

[Reece]

I really feel sorry for this poor guys mother who was clearly distressed asking the police not to hurt her son ... so they kill him, they must have known through training that his muscles would tense up & altimately fall.:cry: Ignorant turds!:nope: Hope mom sues for all it's worth, won't get her son back but maybe they'll review the future use and training of tazers.:-?

[Zachstar]

What strikes me is the absurdity of the whole situation.
If the cops haven't had the tasers and only wore firearms WOULD THEY HAVE FIRED UPON the guy to calm him down ?
I think its safe to say that the police would have done the sensible thing.
Either try to physically calm down this guy or wait for an expert to handle this situation.
Not sure about NYPD, but we don't have "experts" to handle the situation, we are it. I'm not sure what you mean about 'physically calm down'.

If the guy was using the four foot long glass tube to strike at the officers as it is reported, they would have been more then likely justified in using their firearms to negate the threat. As I stated before, it was a no-win situation.
So the officer was trapped. Could not retreat and thus it was warranted to kill? Tell me this Mr Public servant would you have pulled your sidearm and fired? If so please inform your department of your posts here because I think they need to know your mental state in my opinion.

I could not stop laughing at your efforts to make the contents of tube lights look to be like some kind of super danger when in the case a broken bulb it is recommended to leave and move outside or well vented area. And simply sweep up the remains afterwords.

OMG broken CFL!!! RUN ***** RUN!!!

Edit: Why did I post. Had you done it you would also be charged with manslaughter so whatever just point this topic to your department please.

[Zachstar]

I really feel sorry for this poor guys mother who was clearly distressed asking the police not to hurt her son ... so they kill him, they must have known through training that his muscles would tense up & altimately fall.:cry: Ignorant turds!:nope: Hope mom sues for all it's worth, won't get her son back but maybe they'll review the future use and training of tazers.:-?

This is not a case of a lawsuit. This is a crime (Manslaughter)

[Happy Times]

You know the problem with tasers is since they don't "harm" directly the subject we tend to consider them more socially acceptable.
I ask you, what is the difference between tasing the guy and firing on him (not with the intention of killing).
There is no difference whatsoever, just as firing on that guy would be considered absurd, so is tasing.
Calling tasers non lethal weapons makes them socially acceptable.
But the nature of those weapons doesn't change.

A gun can kill, but it can also incapacitate a suspect. Does any sensibile person dare call a gun a non lethal weapon ? :roll:

Is your real name Annie Oakley? :rotfl:

Shooting to maim is a myth. If I were to discharge my duty weapon, it's to protect my life, another officer's life or civillian's life. Don't know how it is in other countries, but case law has established in the US that using a firearm by police, constitutes deadly force. Besides, do you realize how hard it is to hit center mass from 5 feet away. I do, 90% of police involved shootings happen from 5 feet or less, and the hit percentage is a whopping 30%. (to center mass, the largest presented target)

If it is a myth, why does most situations in Finland end with one shot on the shoulder or leg? Like when a guy went on a rampage from an army garrison with an assault rifle, crossbow, flare gun and a trained German Shepherd. He had killed three but one shot to the shoulder ended the chase. No one would have said anything if they had shot him dead. This guy had a light tube.:doh: I have to say that i know a lot of Finnish police officers and im first to defend their right to use deadly force if warranted.

[1480]

joegrundeman: Thanks for taking time to respond. Point to me where I said once that the man deserved to be shot. I never did. I said they would have been more then likely justified. No one deserves to die ultimately and I really wish that could be the fact, we would not to need be armed if that was the case, now wouldn't it. :yep:

Your argument about who pays my salary and therefore they have the right to criticize my actions. Lets break that down a bit more, shall we. By what you posit, that would make them by very definition, my boss. Then it follows logically that they can also tell me what to do. Think about that for a moment, I pull you over for reckless driving, and you remind me of the fact that you pay my salary, so I should not issue a citation. Utopia!


The point being the policeman had an objective, which was to talk the guy down. Then presumably he thought he could solve the problem with a taser, without actually thinking through the obvious consequences of his actions.


If you really read the article, why are you castigating the officer that used the taser? The officer was ordered to use the taser by his supervisor. Your outrage is directed at the wrong person. Don't you think that this will haunt him for the rest of his life? What the officer in charge of the scene was thinking, I'm not sure since I was not there.

HT: I wish I could shoot like that. The fact of the matter is there are many factors involved when a person gets involved in a situation where the reptile brain (the fight or flight instinct) takes over. Rapid breathing, rapid production of adrenaline, increase in heart rate, loss of fine motor skills and tunnel vision. Taking that all into account, that we're lucky enough to hit a target that realtively large only 3 out of 10 times, shows just how powerful these factors really are. Secondly, break glass and what do you have? An object just as dangerous as a straight razor.

Zachster:So the officer was trapped. Could not retreat and thus it was warranted to kill? Tell me this Mr Public servant would you have pulled your sidearm and fired? If so please inform your department of your posts here because I think they need to know your mental state in my opinion.


Did you read the entire article? The man attempted to force himself into a 2nd floor occupied apartment. What happens if he makes entry and hurts the occupant? The folks would be screaming that the police did not do enough to prevent that from happening. And rightly so. I do not know what I would have done if I was there, since I was not there. What got my goat is, since no one had prefaced any of their critical statements with, "....I saw the whole thing happen, or I just happened to be there....." that they automatically become an expert in what the officers should have done. Funny thing is, I reread the article and not once did I see where the police tell him to get into a confrontation with his mother, took the man out of the apartment, strip him naked, put him on a fire escape, give him a flouresent glass tube, move his arms, attempt to push him through an apartment window and then instruct him to ignore them when they would use verbal commands. The officers did not discharge their duty weapons. They used a less than lethal force option, unfortunately to a tragic ending. And I never once brought up anyone's mental state on the board, so I'm not sure why you would take the time to question mine.


I could not stop laughing at your efforts to make the contents of tube lights look to be like some kind of super danger when in the case a broken bulb it is recommended to leave and move outside or well vented area. And simply sweep up the remains afterwords.


You do realize that the type of mercury used is released in vapor form. If there isn't any danger from inhaling mercury, why do they tell you to take those steps? Going another step, brake pads were made, back in the day, with asbestos. Asbestos is only dangerous when inhaled, so why did they ban it? You don't drive your vehicle inside? Asbestos brake pads were great for their longevity and performance, yet they were banned from use where their primary location and use was for outside?
Inhaling asbestos does not kill instantly but causes a deadly cancer with repeated exposure. Mercury causes damage to the central nervous system even in miniscule amounts , so if a substance does not cause immediate death, it's okay to be exposed to it?

[Frame57]

A friend of mine is a deputy. He stands about 6' 4" and weighs 270 lbs. He was making a tazer demo video for the department. He volunteered to be the attacker and another deputy was to taze him. He was able to mock assualt the deputy after several tazes. The tazer could not bring him down, but what was odd about this is when I talked to him recently the effects of the tazer gave him an irregular heart beat and he had to have it shocked back to normal rythem. They were unaware that this could happen...

[1480]

"During the struggle, the officers were attacked by the man wielding broken pieces of glass and he was fired upon and killed," said a press release from the Mankato Department of Public Safety. It's believed to be the first time Mankato Police have ever shot and killed someone.



http://wcco.com/local/naked.intruder.mankato.2.620530.html




SACRAMENTO – A man with two prior serious convictions was sentenced last week to 25 years to life for spousal battery and assault with a deadly weapon after an incident last year in which he attacked his wife with broken glass.



http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/775679.html


Eliminate the possibility of broken glass becoming a deadly weapon with our Stainless Steel Mirrors. Nickel-chrome-plated frame attaches to wall or back plate with tamper-resistant Torx screws.

(or to spay and neuter your pet)


http://www.bobbarker.com/webguest/bGuestCat.asp?category=00000319



The director of emergency medicine at Sydney's St Vincent's Hospital, Dr Gordian Fulde, says he has noticed an increase in the number of people presenting with glass-inflicted wounds.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/30/2074440.htm



The risk of injury from the storage, handling and disposal of glassware or broken glass exists in most workplaces. Broken glass can cause lacerations, cuts, and puncture wounds which may result in severed arteries or tendons, amputations, eye injuries, or exposure to disease.



http://www.scif.com/safety/safetymeeting/Article.asp?ArticleID=55



Broken glass can cause serious cuts, loss of blood and infected wounds. Glass bottles should be kept out of the reach of young children, and the house and play area should be kept free of broken glass. Young children should be taught not to touch broken glass; older children should be taught to dispose of any broken glass safely.


http://www.unicef.org/ffl/text/12/4.htm



STOCKHOLM (AFP) — Rowdy bars may no longer be quite as dangerous thanks to a British professor who won a criminology prize on Wednesday for his work showing how injuries from broken glass can be reduced.
Jonathan Shepherd, a face surgeon and professor at Cardiff University, won the Stockholm Prize in Criminology with his research into bar fights and glass-related injuries.


http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2K5HXu-Dy-M_AC38KDMjnhNUYA

[1480]

A friend of mine is a deputy. He stands about 6' 4" and weighs 270 lbs. He was making a tazer demo video for the department. He volunteered to be the attacker and another deputy was to taze him. He was able to mock assualt the deputy after several tazes. The tazer could not bring him down, but what was odd about this is when I talked to him recently the effects of the tazer gave him an irregular heart beat and he had to have it shocked back to normal rythem. They were unaware that this could happen...

Could be a genetic problem. I certainly hope he is all right. It's not perfect but so far is a nice tool to have. Recently they have placed mini cameras in the tasers to record the use and actions of the taser. Not many people know that the taser is equipped with a memory chip that records how the taser was used and the information is downloaded to a computer.

[Mikhayl]

Do you happen to have a dozen links explaining how a naked man standing on a narrow 10 feet high roll-down gate can harm four cops with said light tube ?

[1480]

Do you happen to have a dozen links explaining how a naked man standing on a narrow 10 feet high roll-down gate can harm four cops with said light tube ?

Haven't googled it yet, but give me some time :up:

A side note: do you how difficult it is to get a secure hold on a sweaty naked person? (let the jokes begin)

And to answer your question 148 officers were killed in the line of duty from the classification of "falls", 388 were "stabbed" to death, 499 were listed as "assaulted" for the reason of their murder, 31 exposure to toxins, and 104 to duty related illness. Any of those scenarios could have easily happened in this situation. These stats are from 1791-2008 in the US alone.

Source: http://odmp.org/

[SS107.9MHz]

So if a guy waves a cigarette or a well-done pork chop at a police officer we can assume he is getting him in a lethal threat (cuz they cause cancer too you know) with no chance to escape as was clearly the case in this situation (NOT), so that gives the officer permission to shoot him, even with a non-lethal weapon but obviously with very serious consequences...

Naked crazy guy + Angry Cop = Dead crazy guy

Not that complicated

[Mikhayl]

I'm sure cops are trained well enough to handle a sweaty man especially when they're four around him. Anyway no matter how hard you try to justify it, now the guy is dead because a moron thought that tazing a man standing 10 feet above ground was a good move. Might as well have pushed him. Another victim of that orwellian weapon :damn:

[jumpy]

You know, in some cases I don't think cops use their smarts as much as they could, or try and be creative.
Indeed. I find the same thinking more deeply disturbing than the more widespread use of tazers.
No offence to any serving, but there's a lot of very thick pigs in the UK. Mores the pity.

[Letum]

Another victim of that orwellian weapon
Orwellian?

Could you elaborate a bit?
They don't strike me as symbols of dystopia.

[Mikhayl]

Ah, I didn't think of it that way, just the "non lethal weapon" reminds me of the "minister of peace" and that sort of thing, nothing really deep I'm affraid :-?

[1480]

So if a guy waves a cigarette or a well-done pork chop at a police officer we can assume he is getting him in a lethal threat (cuz they cause cancer too you know) with no chance to escape as was clearly the case in this situation (NOT), so that gives the officer permission to shoot him, even with a non-lethal weapon but obviously with very serious consequences...

Naked crazy guy + Angry Cop = Dead crazy guy

Not that complicated


Pork chops slathered in apple sauce, yes.


People are making light (no pun) of the fact that man was armed. The chemical inside of said bulb is toxic. I still do not get any straight answers out of anyone, except two people, that they should have waited the idiot out. Fine that was what I was originally asking for. Exposure to something that can be avoided is a good thing, no? My whole point is that glass when broken, is a deadly weapon, compound it with the fact that there is a toxic substance inside of it.


Mikahyl: I could care care less how trained an officer is, picture a landing as I described and try to get all 4 officers to surround said person, wrestle someone down who is naked and sweaty , put cuffs on them and no one fall off the fire escape. Hollywood yes, real life probably not. BTW, we train in control techniques on flat ground, you cannot simulate all adverse conditions. And you'll be glad to know we are getting standard issue comfy pillows to defend ourselves in place of the tasers, next week.


I never said once that I thought the officer's actions were justified. The department, along with the states attorney office will conduct an investigation. If it leads to a criminal indictment and conviction then I will say how I really feel about what happened because all of the facts will come to light. A preliminary judgement of guilt is being leveled upon the affected officers before there ever was an investigation into their actions. Over here there is a presumption of innocent until proven guilty unless you happen to be the police.

[1480]

The following essay (an extract from the book, 'On Combat (http://www.amazon.com/Combat-Dave-Grossman/dp/0964920514/sr=8-1/qid=1166801989/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-6809222-8215802?ie=UTF8&s=books)') was written by Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman, U.S. Army (Ret.)

On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves


By Dave Grossman

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there that will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."...

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up! Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.

There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- From sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

"Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize; especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust, or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness, and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less," his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically, at your moment of truth.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Normally, I'm not too fond of cops, but I'm going to take 1480's side, here.

For one thing, this was obviously an accident, as has been stated. For another thing, sometimes, in high-pressure situations, one can make incorrect spur-of-the-moment decisions. It is very easy to do. Those of you who are in law enforcement or have had direct contact with the enemy in battle would agree, I'm sure. Firefighters, too. And probably some others I'm forgetting.

I myself am guilty. During one incident where a Sergeant was wounded by a suicide vehicle bomb, I was the first one to reach him. He was bleeding profusely, seemingly all over his upper body, and large divots of flesh were missing from his arms.

He staggered towards me, and I laid him down, then began frantically tearing through my first aid kit, looking for pressure bandages. When I finally found them, I fumbled with the packaging for what seemed like several minutes, before giving up and just tearing it open with my teeth (first no-no, saliva could contaminate the bandages)

My hands shook as I tried to apply the badage the way I had been taught, starting with his right arm (second no-no, the head wound should have been treated first)
But I couldn't remember how to do it! I started wrapping one way, then decided that was wrong and began to go the other way, only to reverse my decision again. I totally blanked. Hundreds of hours of medical training simply evaporated from my memory.

The Sergeant's screams became more intense, and I panicked even more. I thought he was dying, and I was failing to save him. I beleatedly remembered to treat his head wound, taking the now bloodied and tangled bandage, and attempted to discern where the head wound was. I took off his ESS ballistic goggles and tried to wipe the blood away from his forehead so I could see the wound, contaminating the area with sand from my gloves in the process. Seeing what I had done, I tore the gloves off, only to find that my hands were all sandy as well (damn baby-powder sand:damn: )

I started to feel dizzy. There was a lot of blood now, and blood seemed to be coming from his mouth (it wasn't, though)and I started to wonder if he had internal injuries and I had made a mistake by moving him around, trying to apply bandages.


Finally, I just lost it and screamed "CORPSMAN!!!" as loud as I could, over and over.( another no-no. That should have been the first thing I did, instead of trying to stabilize a casualty myself:88) )

It seemed like hours before he finally arrived, and the Sergeant seemed like he was going to pass out from blood loss. (he wasn't, though. Doc later explained that it was because of the pain) Thank God for Corpsmen.

I learned later that the Sergeant's life hadn't been in immediate jeapordy, but if it had, he certainly would have died of blood loss while I fumbled about. :nope:



War Story over, back to the point. An unfair amount of accountability is placed on "civil servants". They face pressure from above to act in a certain way, and the public places a heavy burden on them by assuming they will be the ones who do everything right and make everything right. We're just people, like anyone else. No amount of training will really make us prepared for the do-or-die moment. Effective use of training in a high-pressure situation is dependent upon personal fortitude and other factors which I, at least, do not understand.

As long as life and death are involved, there will never be a perfect system. Mistakes have a lot of gravity in police situations, and they will happen.

So give the guy a break, I'm sure he was trying his best. :yep:

[Zachstar]

Um, No...

Thats like saying if I panic and plow into a car it isn't my fault.

This is not an accident. When you fire a taser the body loses control and thus you cant balance and you fall. Saying otherwise its like saying it's ok to shoot people if you do not know it will kill them.

This is a case manslaughter and if this man is not brought to trial it will only serve to weaken trust in tasers. It is only a matter of time before they are known as little more than cop toys instead of a life saving substitute for pulling the sidearm.

[joegrundman]

joegrundeman: Thanks for taking time to respond. Point to me where I said once that the man deserved to be shot. I never did. I said they would have been more then likely justified. No one deserves to die ultimately and I really wish that could be the fact, we would not to need be armed if that was the case, now wouldn't it. :yep:
Well, thank you for responding to my response!

Sorry, I'm not so clear on the difference between the bolded statements in the context of the situation. Either way, you are saying the police could have just shot him with a gun and that would have been a perfectly legal police maneuver

Your argument about who pays my salary and therefore they have the right to criticize my actions. Lets break that down a bit more, shall we. By what you posit, that would make them by very definition, my boss. Then it follows logically that they can also tell me what to do. Think about that for a moment, I pull you over for reckless driving, and you remind me of the fact that you pay my salary, so I should not issue a citation. Utopia!


this is nonsense. You are paid to do a job and you are paid by society, for the benefit of society. If however you feel that you are indeed above the sanction of society in how you carry out your duty, I'm sure you are not the first. Police state!



The point being the policeman had an objective, which was to talk the guy down. Then presumably he thought he could solve the problem with a taser, without actually thinking through the obvious consequences of his actions.

If you really read the article, why are you castigating the officer that used the taser? The officer was ordered to use the taser by his supervisor. Your outrage is directed at the wrong person. Don't you think that this will haunt him for the rest of his life? What the officer in charge of the scene was thinking, I'm not sure since I was not there.


then they are both responsible, isn't that how it works when the police are charging two people of participating in crime? However, I'm not sure whether "just following orders" has the same absolving effect in the police as it does the armed forces, and how this varies from country to country. I am interested to know.
..
..
..
..


Did you read the entire article? The man attempted to force himself into a 2nd floor occupied apartment. What happens if he makes entry and hurts the occupant? The folks would be screaming that the police did not do enough to prevent that from happening. And rightly so. I do not know what I would have done if I was there, since I was not there.


The thing is, that was before the police had arrived. The police were already there when he was tazed! The arrival of the police had already neutralised the threat. If he actually was going to move into some physical threat, then the polcie were there and armed and able to do something about it

What got my goat is, since no one had prefaced any of their critical statements with, "....I saw the whole thing happen, or I just happened to be there....." that they automatically become an expert in what the officers should have done. Funny thing is, I reread the article and not once did I see where the police tell him to get into a confrontation with his mother, took the man out of the apartment, strip him naked, put him on a fire escape, give him a flouresent glass tube, move his arms, attempt to push him through an apartment window and then instruct him to ignore them when they would use verbal commands. The officers did not discharge their duty weapons. They used a less than lethal force option, unfortunately to a tragic ending. And I never once brought up anyone's mental state on the board, so I'm not sure why you would take the time to question mine.


sure the guy was a few short of a six-pack and clearly spazzing out. But he wasn't a danger with 4 armed cops around, and he didn't need to killed through reckless stupidity

as for mental state, the difference being you seem to be advocating reckless police behaviour and implying that you would do the same


I could not stop laughing at your efforts to make the contents of tube lights look to be like some kind of super danger when in the case a broken bulb it is recommended to leave and move outside or well vented area. And simply sweep up the remains afterwords.

You do realize that the type of mercury used is released in vapor form. If there isn't any danger from inhaling mercury, why do they tell you to take those steps? Going another step, brake pads were made, back in the day, with asbestos. Asbestos is only dangerous when inhaled, so why did they ban it? You don't drive your vehicle inside? Asbestos brake pads were great for their longevity and performance, yet they were banned from use where their primary location and use was for outside?
Inhaling asbestos does not kill instantly but causes a deadly cancer with repeated exposure. Mercury causes damage to the central nervous system even in miniscule amounts , so if a substance does not cause immediate death, it's okay to be exposed to it?
oh puhleeze

what are you going to do, evacuate a 2 block radius if a tube breaks by accident? I can imagine the panic in your household if you dropped a thermometer.

Finally, please note the complete destruction of the flourescent tube at the same time as the guy is killed.

Do you see the cops running for gasmasks? No, they seem more preoccupied with shouting at the witnesses of their gross ******* up

I never said once that I thought the officer's actions were justified.
Yes you have! and even that if they just shot him it would be more than likely justified!

The department, along with the states attorney office will conduct an investigation. If it leads to a criminal indictment and conviction then I will say how I really feel about what happened because all of the facts will come to light. A preliminary judgement of guilt is being leveled upon the affected officers before there ever was an investigation into their actions. Over here there is a presumption of innocent until proven guilty unless you happen to be the police.
sure, but this is not the same as you previous points. You have been saying that everything the police did is essentially as you would have done, that a lunatic waving a light bulb represents some imminent and terrible danger, and that it was a no-win situation despite not knowing the facts and reserving judgement until you do!

Or is it only non-policemen that are not allowed to have opinions on these proceedings based on available evidence?

OK. I'm going to end on a different note

It is not the case that i think policemen are not brave, nor try their best, nor are not heroes, but police in all countries have a tendency to close ranks when subject to criticism. In fact i am very admiring of 99% of police activity. Well, I see it like I see medical professionals. They also do great things and are worthy of my respect and admiration, but this doesn't mean I condone malpractice, and nor would i expect malpracticing doctors to get away with it. Nor would i admire doctors if their first reaction to any hint of wrong-doing by a member of their profession was to close ranks.

[1480]

JGM: I appreciate the time for countering my countered points ;) .

Semantics keep bad guys out of jail because their high priced attorneys know how to use them in an argument. That is why I used the phrase more then likely. Did not say they were justified nor did I say they weren't.

It's all in a matter of perception. Does a reasonable man believe that he was in fear of his life or recieving great bodily harm. That is the standard here. Since I was not there I cannot make a informed judgement on the case. Many jumped up and skewered the officers actions and thought processes w/out being able to look at the totality of the circumstances.

That is why I reacted in that way. Years from now, when then all of the facts are presented, then I can make an informed judgement. We usually are never given the luxury of time when making life or death decisions, but I owe it to my family to come home the same way I went to work.



this is nonsense. You are paid to do a job and you are paid by society, for the benefit of society. If however you feel that you are indeed above the sanction of society in how you carry out your duty, I'm sure you are not the first. Police state!



I was just carrying over the argument you presented to it's natural conculsion. I don't believe I am above the law (your use of semantics is more poetic btw). And society does not pay us. In real life it's owners of property who foot the bill, who interesting enough, suffer the worst when it comes to police & fire services. Quiet neighborhoods whose property values are higher, never see the police because they are continually redeployed into rat holes, where they pay the least. The calls of service are less, but is it fair to take away their coverage? BTW, most of the sociology courses I've taken, call the police a necessary evil.


When you say the mere presence of police neutralized the threat, what about the threat of this man to himself? What would anyone say if he slipped off that fire escape to his death? I could tell you how the headline would read: Police inaction leads to sick man's death. Back to you Rose.....


As for mental state, I was responding to a false accusation by Zachster. I never once advocated reckless police conduct. I never once implyed about what I would do. Instead of making a blanket statement as most did, I broke down the article to digestable portions and made counterpoints about them.

Sure the mecury is a bit of a stretch, but I seen worse than that get guys off a murder, OJ Simpson......



sure, but this is not the same as you previous points. You have been saying that everything the police did is essentially as you would have done, that a lunatic waving a light bulb represents some imminent and terrible danger, and that it was a no-win situation despite not knowing the facts and reserving judgement until you do!



Point out where I ever said that. You are reading into rather than just reading what I have been writing. There is a big difference. This is not interpretation of prose but argument.


Lastly, just remember this: there are three sides to every story; his, theirs and what actually happened...

[1480]

Um, No...

Thats like saying if I panic and plow into a car it isn't my fault.

This is not an accident. When you fire a taser the body loses control and thus you cant balance and you fall. Saying otherwise its like saying it's ok to shoot people if you do not know it will kill them.

This is a case manslaughter and if this man is not brought to trial it will only serve to weaken trust in tasers. It is only a matter of time before they are known as little more than cop toys instead of a life saving substitute for pulling the sidearm.

Tasers are not a substitute for a firearm. They are a lesser force option. Their primary goal is not to be lethal, a firearm on the other hand is. What part of that don't you understand?

[McBeck]

People....keep it clean! No personal attacks or any other misconduct ... Mkay?? *looking around the forum*
:arrgh!:

[Mikhayl]

No reason, the man was accidentally killed by a non lethal weapon, case closed :D

[Frame57]

A friend of mine is a deputy. He stands about 6' 4" and weighs 270 lbs. He was making a tazer demo video for the department. He volunteered to be the attacker and another deputy was to taze him. He was able to mock assualt the deputy after several tazes. The tazer could not bring him down, but what was odd about this is when I talked to him recently the effects of the tazer gave him an irregular heart beat and he had to have it shocked back to normal rythem. They were unaware that this could happen...

Could be a genetic problem. I certainly hope he is all right. It's not perfect but so far is a nice tool to have. Recently they have placed mini cameras in the tasers to record the use and actions of the taser. Not many people know that the taser is equipped with a memory chip that records how the taser was used and the information is downloaded to a computer.He is doing fine. he had to have his heart "reset" with a defibillator. He said that was was ten times worse than the tazer. The guy is agoof ball though, he goes to parties and lets people pepper spray him... Jokingly I asked him seeing how he is a glutton for punishment if he would let me try my garotte on him...:D

[Zachstar]

Um, No...

Thats like saying if I panic and plow into a car it isn't my fault.

This is not an accident. When you fire a taser the body loses control and thus you cant balance and you fall. Saying otherwise its like saying it's ok to shoot people if you do not know it will kill them.

This is a case manslaughter and if this man is not brought to trial it will only serve to weaken trust in tasers. It is only a matter of time before they are known as little more than cop toys instead of a life saving substitute for pulling the sidearm.
Tasers are not a substitute for a firearm. They are a lesser force option. Their primary goal is not to be lethal, a firearm on the other hand is. What part of that don't you understand?
Um no. They are not playtoys for police forces. The point of being nonlethal is so that the officer does not have to kill to stop an action.

They are NOT I repeat NOT supposed to be used as some kind of replacement for wresting a drunk idiot to the ground. Yet yall keep thinking they are just fine for that. And thus it is only a matter of time before real cops that actually try to do their job (You know, serving the public instead of serving a multitude of shocks for absolutely no reason) will lose these lifesaving weapons. Or get so many restrictions on them they will fear to pull it and may pull a firearm because the resulting crap may be far worse than a kill on your mind for the rest of your life.

What I am not understanding is why have you not confirmed to me that you have informed your department of your comments in this topic?

[1480]

What I am not understanding is why have you not confirmed to me that you have informed your department of your comments in this topic?



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Stealth Hunter]

This thread... full of win. EPIC win.

[Skorn]

Um no. They are not playtoys for police forces. The point of being nonlethal is so that the officer does not have to kill to stop an action.

They are NOT I repeat NOT supposed to be used as some kind of replacement for wresting a drunk idiot to the ground. Yet yall keep thinking they are just fine for that.


Just to make a quick reference...very few agencies call them nonlethal anymore, almost all alternative weapons are being referred to as less-than-lethal. They are designed not to be lethal in ideal circumstances, but those circumstances can't always be guaranteed.

I don't think people quite understand the danger of getting in a physical altercation with a suspect that's inebriated or under the influence of drugs. They tend to make very rash decisions and can put up quite a struggle. The last thing an officer wants to do is to compromise himself or his weapon. As stated earlier, the taser isn't supposed to take the place of a situation where the suspect has a firearm. This is another step in the use of force continuum that can be used before escalating the situation further. I'm not particularly defending the use of a taser in this case (I don't see the harm of waiting the situation out and giving him some space), these were just general comments. Some more food for thought...it's hard to demand perfection from an agency that has close to 38,000 uniformed officers.

And as far as charges of manslaughter in this case, I dont' see them pressing those, nor do I see a valid basis for the charge. From what I've found, there's only been one officer who's been indicted on manslaugher charges from a taser incident; the officer shocked the suspect 6 times in three minutes, handcuffed him and placed him in the vehicle, shot him again inside the car and then removed him when he stopped responding and shocked him twice more.

[Reece]

This thread... full of win.Ya left the "d" off Stealth Hunter!:yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

This thread... full of win.Ya left the "d" off Stealth Hunter!:yep:

:confused:

What?

[McBeck]

Um, No...

Thats like saying if I panic and plow into a car it isn't my fault.

This is not an accident. When you fire a taser the body loses control and thus you cant balance and you fall. Saying otherwise its like saying it's ok to shoot people if you do not know it will kill them.

This is a case manslaughter and if this man is not brought to trial it will only serve to weaken trust in tasers. It is only a matter of time before they are known as little more than cop toys instead of a life saving substitute for pulling the sidearm.
Tasers are not a substitute for a firearm. They are a lesser force option. Their primary goal is not to be lethal, a firearm on the other hand is. What part of that don't you understand?

Um no. They are not playtoys for police forces. The point of being nonlethal is so that the officer does not have to kill to stop an action.

They are NOT I repeat NOT supposed to be used as some kind of replacement for wresting a drunk idiot to the ground. Yet yall keep thinking they are just fine for that. And thus it is only a matter of time before real cops that actually try to do their job (You know, serving the public instead of serving a multitude of shocks for absolutely no reason) will lose these lifesaving weapons. Or get so many restrictions on them they will fear to pull it and may pull a firearm because the resulting crap may be far worse than a kill on your mind for the rest of your life.

What I am not understanding is why have you not confirmed to me that you have informed your department of your comments in this topic?
Zachstar...you are now going after the individual. Not allowed.

[Onkel Neal]

What I am not understanding is why have you not confirmed to me that you have informed your department of your comments in this topic?

Just argue your point, leave out this type of comment, please.

Neal, moderator.