What's new
By:

Police Brutality

franklin said:
Oh great. Archieclown and trout are demanding the police taser handicapped old ladies fleeing in wheelchairs and you want to let all the murderers and rapists out of prison. Where has this world gone?
Click to expand...

Nice try. At least you lived up to your motto.
Go big, or don't post.

This has nothing to do with murderers or rapists, let alone any of them that are in prison.

Give it another try though. I will expect your next try to be even more exaggerated.

TIA
 
Archie Moses said:
You just don't get it, apologist.
Click to expand...

Turn your sarcasm meter back on.

You are the one apologizing for the officer's abuse of power and lawlessness.

I "just don't get it" but you refuse to provide a clarifying example or justify your position in even the most remotely logical way. When your position is shown to be outlandish you revert to offensives suitable for conservative AM radio.
 
Last edited:
franklin said:
Turn your sarcasm meter back on.

You are the one apologizing for the officer's abuse of power and lawlessness.

I "just don't get it" but you refuse to provide a clarifying example or justify your position in even the most remotely logical way. When your position is shown to be outlandish you revert to offensives suitable for conservative AM radio.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You're apologizing for the criminal who did multiple things to put herself in a ****ty situation. Have I said there could have been different and better results? Yes. Did she get what she deserved? Absolutely not. But it was not the cop's intention to put her in a coma. He apprehended her in a controversial way, but when all is said and done, the girl is ultimately at fault for her fate in my opinion. Plus, I've already said multiple times why I feel the way I do or agreed with different opinions, and I've even told you I see where you're coming from. You're incapable of seeing the other side to this or unwilling. You've thrown in theology and moral beliefs insults and I've come to the conclusion that you must be trolling on this topic. Other than that, have a nice day, guy.
 
Archie Moses said:
Plus, I've already said multiple times why I feel the way I do or agreed with different opinions, and I've even told you I see where you're coming from. You're incapable of seeing the other side to this or unwilling.
Click to expand...
1. No one cares how you feel. We're interested in how your argument extends to other circumstances. If cops aren't held responsible for lazily or even maliciously violating police procedure or the criminal law, then what? This is where the old lady in a wheelchair example becomes relevant: What makes the situation in this thread (a 19-year-old non-violent criminal fleeing) any different than a 90-year-old bubble gum thief fleeing? Should police be able to use force at their discretion without any recourse? Should the existing standards of conduct be enforced or should they be changed? Why?

2. The other side is apparently incapable of making a rational argument. If you, or anyone else from among the collection of dunces in this thread, would at least try to do so, franklin (and I) could actually respond intelligently and respectfully. I'm not holding my breath.
 
Archie Moses said:
Wrong. You're apologizing for the criminal who did multiple things to put herself in a ****ty situation. Have I said there could have been different and better results? Yes. Did she get what she deserved? Absolutely not. But it was not the cop's intention to put her in a coma. He apprehended her in a controversial way, but when all is said and done, the girl is ultimately at fault for her fate in my opinion. Plus, I've already said multiple times why I feel the way I do or agreed with different opinions, and I've even told you I see where you're coming from. You're incapable of seeing the other side to this or unwilling. You've thrown in theology and moral beliefs insults and I've come to the conclusion that you must be trolling on this topic. Other than that, have a nice day, guy.
Click to expand...

That was a beautiful troll post Archie. +11.
 
The Florida Highway Patrol have cleared 267-pound Trooper Daniel Cole of wrongdoing and have released a disturbing dash cam video that captured him tasing a 100 pound, 20 year old handcuffed girl in the back as she fled.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined Trooper Daniel Cole's "use of force" was justified when he tased the woman last September at the FHP Pinellas Park Substation and cleared him of wrongdoing.

The fleeing woman, Danielle Maudsley, 20, suffered severe brain damage after hitting her head on the concrete and has been in a persistent vegetative state ever since.

The video shows Maudsley fleeing a back door of the substation with Cole following closely behind.

Maudsley was arrested for her alleged involvement in two hit-and-run crashes and driving without a license.

Cole brought Maudsley to the substation to complete his paperwork before taking her to the Pinellas County Jail, according to FHP reports.

As she enters the parking lot, Cole deploys his taser and Maudsley hits the ground hard, with her head slamming into the asphalt.

"What were you thinking? What are you, stupid?," Cole can be heard asking Maudsley on the video.

"I can't get up," said Maudsley.

"I don't want you to get up," said Cole.

"I can't get up," Maudsley said again. The last words Maudsley has spoken since being tasered.

On the video, Maudsley loses consciousness about two minutes after hitting her head.

Maudsley's mother said the trooper should have used other means to stop her daughter from fleeing.

"He was right behind her. He could've reached out," Maudsley said. "It was unnecessary."

The mother hired defense attorney Kevin Haylsett, who put FHP on notice for a lawsuit.

Hayslett said Cole violated FHP's taser policy which states:

"Fleeing cannot be the sole reason for the deployment."

"When you shoot someone in the back, and they're running away, all that force -- as you saw when Danielle's head hit the concrete -- that's why they don't allow you to do that, because you can have horrible tragedies like this," Hayslett said.

With any rule, there is an exception.

An Office of Inspector General Investigation Unit report states: "Although the FHP policy on Electronic Control Devices states that a member should not use the device on a handcuffed prisoner, it also provides that there may be situations that conflict with this policy."

The report goes on to state: "In this situation, Maudsley ... removed one of her handcuffs while in the back of Cole's patrol car, and moved her handcuffs from behind her back, to in front of her body, as she attempted to flee the FHP Station. In addition, Maudsley was running towards US Highway 19 which is a high volume road."

According to the report, Maudsley had oxycodone and cocaine in her system at the time.

"The Florida Department of Law Enforcement conducted an independent review of the incident," FHP spokesperson Sgt. Steve Gaskins said. "Their investigation found that the trooper's actions were legal and within the scope of his duties."

"He would've been better off to use his nightstick on her than he would a taser," Hayslett said.

The attorney also pointed out that Maudsley only weighs about 100 pounds.

In the report, Cole said he chose to use the taser because he "felt she was more susceptible to being injured if he attempted to tackle her." Cole weighs approximately 267 pounds.

Hayslett called the dash cam video disturbing. "It's one of those videos -- when you see it and you watch her head hit the pavement -- that it's hard to get those images out of your head," he said.

Maudsley's mom said her daughter's prognosis is not good. She is likely to remain in a vegetative state.

Maudsley is now in a Ft. Lauderdale rehab center that specializes in severe brain injuries.
Click to expand...

Going back to one of my original points: It's hard being a cop. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Like I've said, I see both sides of the argument. But when all is said and done, I believe a police officer tried to do his best (made a mistake using the taser) to protect and serve in trying to apprehend a fleeing criminal. I would bet anything the cop feels bad about and will have to live with it for the rest of his life. With that said, I think his actions were justified and certainly not brutal.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
Yeah, but even being tackled you have more control over how your body lands.

Honestly, the dude just looks lazy here. I would understand it more if he had been chasing her for a long time, but he was right there. I understand your viewpoint that if you run from the cops, bad stuff is going to happen to you, but the situation could have been handled with more intelligence and effort.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Florida Highway Patrol Manual I posted specifies that an officer should take into account whether or not a suspect could reasonably be captured at a later date before using much lesser forces, let alone a deadly taser.

Again, tasers are not justified where deadly force is not justified because tasers kill people plain and simple.
 
Archie Moses said:
Just a question. If deadly force is justified, why would a cop use a taser and not a gun?
Click to expand...

Just because deadly force is justified, doesn't mean it should be the first option.

I guess if a cop was in range to use a taser, they may choose to use it and detain the criminal, rather than just kill them.
 
Cyrone Torbin said:
Just because deadly force is justified, doesn't mean it should be the first option.

I guess if a cop was in range to use a taser, they may choose to use it and detain the criminal, rather than just kill them.
Click to expand...

Why would they use a taser to detain the criminal? I thought they were used to kill people.

Oh, and it's nice to have franklin, our local Florida Highway Patrol manual expert on our board.
I'm also glad those manuals are very straight forward and easy to read. I'm sure he has read the whole thing multiple times and kept the big picture in mind to get every nuance right. I'm sure one quote wasn't pulled out and used to prove a point when there is more to the policy.

/sarcasm
 
Last edited:
JazzSpazz said:
Why would they use a taser to detain the criminal? I thought they were used to kill people.

Oh, and it's nice to have franklin, our local Florida Highway Patrol manual expert on our board.
I'm also glad those manuals are very straight forward and easy to read. There is no way you would have to read the whole thing multiple times as well as have more of the big picture in mind to get every nuance right. There is no way one quote could be pulled out and used to prove a point when there is more to the policy.

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

This.
 
JazzSpazz said:
Why would they use a taser to detain the criminal? I thought they were used to kill people.

Oh, and it's nice to have franklin, our local Florida Highway Patrol manual expert on our board.
I'm also glad those manuals are very straight forward and easy to read. There is no way you would have to read the whole thing multiple times as well as have more of the big picture in mind to get every nuance right. There is no way one quote could be pulled out and used to prove a point when there is more to the policy.

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

That definitely did not read as sarcasm.
 
Gameface said:
People don't seem to want to acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

I could have pointed this out as the source of disagreement by the third page and actually made 3 or 4 lenghty posts addressing it. But what's the point when there are hundreds of strawman arguments to burn down (over and over, and cyclically over).
 
Are you guys including me as one of the people who don't want to "acknowledge" a taser shouldn't have been used? If so, please read forum again.

Seems like there are people that think things are so black and white, but in reality, reality doesn't work that way.
 
GVC said:
1. No one cares how you feel. We're interested in how your argument extends to other circumstances. If cops aren't held responsible for lazily or even maliciously violating police procedure or the criminal law, then what? This is where the old lady in a wheelchair example becomes relevant: What makes the situation in this thread (a 19-year-old non-violent criminal fleeing) any different than a 90-year-old bubble gum thief fleeing? Should police be able to use force at their discretion without any recourse? Should the existing standards of conduct be enforced or should they be changed? Why?

2. The other side is apparently incapable of making a rational argument. If you, or anyone else from among the collection of dunces in this thread, would at least try to do so, franklin (and I) could actually respond intelligently and respectfully. I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

So, am I a dunce?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top