GVC
Well-Known Member
More or less.
Police Brutality
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
The way I see it, it is to save the officer the trama of killing someone by using a method that only has a possibility of killing them as opposed to shooting them in the chest which will most likely kill them.
I posted that idea before.
For instance, a 350lb disorderly man is flailing around and not cooperating. The two police officers, 180lbs each, cannot safely tackle tha man but have been able to avoid his flailing around so far. He starts towards a neighbor kid and instead of shooting him they have the option to tase him. It will probably work and he will probably not die, but they have to protect the innocent person from an attack, so if they had no taser they would likely shoot him. This way they don't have to put themselves through that, don't have to get suspended while the shooting is investigated, don't have the lawsuit filed by the family, etc..
You're really trying to take this too far.
My point is that most government documents are not straightforward. There are often changes to the rules depending on some factor or other situations. There are never straightforward documents that state if a, then b. A general rule, but more specific changes to that rule given certain sets of circumstances.
Capiche?
What? My post was not understood in the way I intended it to be?
I think I'm going to die of not surprise.
Seriously though...
I can understand that my angle, and lame attempts at humor or jabs do not come through properly.
For that, I am truly sorry.
That's it. I knew you were going to push this over the edge. At least you didn't take those grandmothers in wheelchairs with you.
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
C'mon n00b everybody knows that if you taze an electric wheel chair it's like hitting the nitro in car. Why do you think old people carry tazers, it's so when they're done shoplifting or whatever crime old people do if they somehow get caught and need to make a quick getaway they just set their taze to nitro(full) and all you see is a blue (hair) streak flying by.
last word
Boondocksaint27
Active Member
Just got on here and am replying as I go, so I may have a few more posts before this topic is done. It depends on the department, but at the one I am at (as well as most in the area) the PT test is once a year. As a side note, I am a big proponent in PT tests. If I'm in the middle of a scrum or in a foot chase I want to know that people coming to help me have the stamina to help me catch the suspect or win the fight.
Boondocksaint27
Active Member
One final thought on this topic, now that I've had time to read all of the comments. I'm sure I'm going to be accused of bias, but when I read the title I was anticipating seeing something that an Officer intentionally did to injure or harm a person. I seriously doubt it was the Officer's intention to put this woman in a coma. My guess would be that he had a minimal number of seconds to weigh the risk of tackling the female vs tasing her and opted for tasing as she was a 90lb woman and he a 267 lb man.
It's unfortunate that things turned out the way they did. It's also unfortunate that this female had cocaine and oxys in her system and had twice committed hit and runs (something that could also have seriously hurt someone). That's not to say that she deserves what has happened to her, but I'm also not ready to crucify the Officer or monday morning quarterback what he "should" have done. He had debateably a matter of split-seconds to a couple of seconds to make his decision. Tackling her could have seriously injured them both. Grabbing her hair (I think I read somebody post that he should have done that) usually causes someone injury as your snapping someone whose momentum is moving forward, backward applying direct pressure to the head and neck and so it is discouraged. He tased her trying to quickly stop the pursuit. Right decision? Wrong decision? Not for me to say as I was not in his shoes, but I can see why he made the decision he did.
Just my two cents anyway.
It's unfortunate that things turned out the way they did. It's also unfortunate that this female had cocaine and oxys in her system and had twice committed hit and runs (something that could also have seriously hurt someone). That's not to say that she deserves what has happened to her, but I'm also not ready to crucify the Officer or monday morning quarterback what he "should" have done. He had debateably a matter of split-seconds to a couple of seconds to make his decision. Tackling her could have seriously injured them both. Grabbing her hair (I think I read somebody post that he should have done that) usually causes someone injury as your snapping someone whose momentum is moving forward, backward applying direct pressure to the head and neck and so it is discouraged. He tased her trying to quickly stop the pursuit. Right decision? Wrong decision? Not for me to say as I was not in his shoes, but I can see why he made the decision he did.
Just my two cents anyway.
Man, I've been waiting for another voice of reason to chime in. +16, sir.
This is exactly how I expected you to respond. Are you open for questions? Trout, Archie, Beanclown, and Spazz individually and collectively did nothing short of a horrible job defending the officer with their circular logic and evasiveness. Criminals and Houdini alike could take lessons from them. It would be nice to hear from someone who could add some real insight and context in an intellectually honest way.
Dammit, here I go again, but "Circular logic and evasiveness"? Intellectually honest? WTF is this garbage? I can't speak for the others, but my take is anything but circular and evasive. As for intellectual honesty, what more do you want besides what I honestly think and feel? Your ****** envy is ridiculous.
This is very true
This doesn't change the fact that I have your number at the table. All your chips are belong to me.
Boondocksaint27
Active Member
Sure. I'm open for questions.