[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is hairsplitting. If a tazer, no matter if a distance tazer or a non-shooting tazer, is being used, it means to deliver the subject a painful dose of electricity. I had a meeting with Mr. Electricity once when I was a child. The pain was terrible.

Um, that's the idea under certain circumstances. As I said, stun, tase, club - they all hurt but they need to be put in play under certain circumstances.

BTW, in Germany polciemen are strong and tough enough to be able to deal with such a situation and getting the subject out of a room - without even having Tazers available.

Obviously there's a big difference between German and US cops!

The tazing still is excessive, and I do not stop critiocising it. It was in no way necessary. Tazers should be meant as a weapon that does not seriously huirt an offender who poses a thread, and to disarm him. That'S also what they originally had been invented for. But here, and probably not only here, they are used as a disciplinary measure. It is not the police' job to decide about actual penalties. That is the job of a court, and a juidge. So I still say Tazer get abused in examples like this. And again my hint: we can do without them over here. German police union even says they do not want them, only in special units, eventually - and they hint at the negative example in America. It's the police itself saying that.

I cannot honestly say what the "rules of taser engagement are" but in principle using force to subdue a suspect is perfectly legitimate. Like I said, before tasers and stunners, there were billy clubs. Bakc then they we used and abused as well.

In this case the guy was refusing to be cuffed and continued struggling with the police who did not seem to be able to pin this guy down. Why? I don't know. I wasn't there and you cannot see clearly in the videos what's happening in the scuffle on the floor. At some point, however, enough's enough. In this case, he seemed to be quite deservant of using extra means in order to be restrained and cuffed.

Unacceptable what you say, by basic legal principles. Maybe he had a bomb trigger hidden in the book. I think he should have been shot in both hands imemdiately. Just in case, you know. If following your logic, we immediately must arrest the complete population. so that we must not "reach that point".

I'm sorry. You lose me here. One does not need to have a bomb in a book to get arrested for DTP and one does not need a bomb in a book to get tased for aggressively resisting arrest.

Head, teeth, hands and feet. Yep, remember those guys?

Not everyone is a second Bruce Lee.[/quote]
Once again one doesn't have to be. There are plenty of instances of people being arrested who know nothing of martial arts or hand-2-hand combat who use their available means to inflict harm to law enforcers. This shouldn't be news to you. Are you trying to pretend it doesn't happen? It happens plenty.

and I expect policemen to have proper training to deal with a figure like in this example without using weapons.

I am not qualified to know whether what's shown on the video is proper or improper.
[quote]If american polcie cant do that, they are welcomed to complete their training in Germany. Hell, even I could train them in this regard.
[quote]
There really is no such thing as "American Police". Each townlette, city, state, county, etc., can have their own forces, with separate offices, budgets, facilities, resoures, and most important different laws and training for them all.

Yes. so let's take that guy out of the room. I still do not see the need to taszer that guy.

Discussed above. I disagree in as much as I see a possibility that it was called for and, again, I'm not familiar with the rules of when tasers are allowed.

He obviously wanted to get it on camera. And they did him that favour. Clever! Ironically, last monday I was witness at court, a shoplifter who resisted arrest half a year ago and claimed to have been beaten when being defenseless (being kept down by already two guys, one of whom was me). That detective said it was self-defense, but the truth was he allowed himself getting provoked verbally. If a subject is already on the ground and hold down by two, later three people, he may struggle to get out, but effetcively is defenseless if competently being taken care of. beating him in that condition (or tazer him) is no act of self defense, but using more force than necessary.

Again, you cannot fully see what went on in the struggle on the floor in the back of the auditorium.

I shouted at that detectiove in that situation to get out and stay away when seing that he was loosing selfcontrol, but he didn't listen and hit the man in the face, twice. And I could not stop him since I was busy with the guy on the floor. The detective will be sentenced for physical injury now. Clever. He definetly is in the wrong business when loosing self-control so easily - by being verbally provoked. the thief I also saw at court. And I saw that he took great satisfaction from seeing that he succeeded in getting thta man into trouble - with words only!

Each case is different and has to be judged for its own facts and circumstances.

If, as I previously concluded from the video and the bad sound, he did nothing wrong, , and if even the audience did not complain about something he did, why then etc etc.

Look up the details on the web. People are making timelines in the videos when he was told to step away, when he exceeded his time limit, how he ignored police requests and movements to stop, etc. That's why I say this case is very hard to call.

Still, the reaction is too excessive in my eyes.

He brought it upon himself. Here's how I would have done it, based on how my parents brought me up to respect the laws and rules of society:

AVON: And furthermore, Mr. Kerry, ever since your wife introduced green and purple ketchup, our pasta dinners have............

MODERATOR: I'm sorry, your time is up.

AVON: I'm switching to Hunts, you Wafflehead!

And I'd go back to my seat. That's not what happened here.

It would have been enough to simply get him out, and questioning him outside.

Again they tried but he was unruly from the 1st second. Look at the videos again. And this is an essentially cause of this blowup and solely this jerk's fault.

If half a dozen policeman can't acchieve that, they are either badly trained - or better seek a new job. I simply judge that on the basis of my own skills, so I do not demand too much. BTW, on TV there are often debates, and stage discussions - and if somebody gets a bit liud, or seeks attention, and oversteps his time limit - we still do not shoot him out of the saddle, but - depending on the situation - exclude him by ignoring him (or not), or catch him and lead him out of the room. If needed, the guards even carry him out of the room.

They tried and failed. Interestingly, maybe because each cop individually was afraid to use sufficient physical force, out of political correctness fears. This resulted in the stunning, which makes things look even worse. I'm just theorizing because you do need to explain why so many able bodied cops could not subdue this guy. Is it fear of using force and then heading for an inquiry? In this day and age, I wouldn't be surprised.

The guy got the public media attention that he probably wanted, and the police looks bad by having handled the issue the way they did. That says it all.

Looks can be deceiving and it's about time people analyze news and events for what they are and not for how they look and feel.