Police taze man for trying to save his house from a fire. - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Police taze man for trying to save his house from a fire. (Page 2 of 10)

Posted: 11/13/2012 9:58:20 AM EDT

[#1]

Never mind, I forgot this was the libs GD.

Posted: 11/13/2012 9:59:39 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

snip
I'm agreeing with the majority here. The cops should've let him back into the fire and let him burn. I understand that he wasn't in the house that was already on fire, but was told to move back and then tried to grab the hose and go back into the area he was originally told to leave.

so if he was not in the house ...how would he have burned staying on the outside?

Posted: 11/13/2012 9:59:59 AM EDT

[#3]

The shear heat of a house fire close enough to catch another house on the fire, will negate any benefit of the water.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:01:08 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:03:28 AM EDT

[#5]

We're either free, or we're not. There's no middle ground. If a man wants to act on his instincts and attempt to protect his property then he ought to be able to do it. It's his decision, whether it's a rational one or not, it's his. Why should the law be able to make that decision for him? There's way too much hand holding "for our own good" these days. Let him fight the fire, if he dies in the process then where's the problem? It's one of the ways the population used to keep itself in check.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:03:52 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Should've just let him go back in and burn.

That would be his choice to make.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:04:13 AM EDT

[#7]

Anyone notice whats libs, and cophaters have in common?
They don't listen to the facts.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:05:28 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

So you believe it was ok to taze him then. Somebody good with statistics tell me how many officers have to answer for their own fuckups, rather than the departments hiring them? Regardless, it's common sense.

This is the complete opposite end of the spectrum of the story where the firefighters let a house burn because they didn't pay for services.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:05:42 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
The shear heat of a house fire close enough to catch another house on the fire, will negate any benefit of the water.

yep.

also, you know how often the fire dept is able to save a house that is on fire, with all of their hoses and equipment? not very often, in my experience.

this is just like all the "i'm not going to evacuate the area about to be ravaged by a hurricane, i can tough it out".

then my ass has to go in there in waist deep shit water full of downed power lines to get them out.

you want to be self reliant? fine, go for it. but dont turn around and get sue happy when you fuck yourself up.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:05:59 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2012/3/9/f591975a-3e5a-4232-aca3-4acd6cabed39.jpg

HE WAS SPRAYING THE OUTSIDE OF HIS HOUSE WITH A GARDEN HOSE.

Yeah, I got that. Fucking Captain Obvious.

I'll repeat it again, for the mentally slow. They should have let him back into it and let him burn. Should I draw a picture?

He was the neighbor. He was keeping the neighbor's burning house from igniting his.

What is this, Hooked on Phonics?

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:06:25 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

dude

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:06:48 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
We're either free, or we're not. There's no middle ground. If a man wants to act on his instincts and attempt to protect his property then he ought to be able to do it. It's his decision, whether it's a rational one or not, it's his. Why should the law be able to make that decision for him? There's way too much hand holding "for our own good" these days. Let him fight the fire, if he dies in the process then where's the problem? It's one of the ways the population used to keep itself in check.

What is the logical conclusion based on your first sentence and the facts presented?

If the man had gotten hurt or killed, the city (i.e. taxpayers) would have been the nearest lawsuit target (right or wrong, it doesn't matter, it just is).

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:07:04 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Anyone notice whats libs, and cophaters have in common?
They don't listen to the facts.

Why don't you enlighten these "libs and cophaters" then on the facts RayRay of how this was an awesomely good take-down.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:09:42 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

So you believe it was ok to taze him then. Somebody good with statistics tell me how many officers have to answer for their own fuckups, rather than the departments hiring them? Regardless, it's common sense.

This is the complete opposite end of the spectrum of the story where the firefighters let a house burn because they didn't pay for services.

i see anecdotal evidence of officers "answering for their fuckups" all the time at work. ive also known several guys who got sued personally for bullshit. they didn't lose the cases, but they still had to deal with all kinds of hell trying to exhonerate themselves in our overly litigious society.

and nowhere did i say they should have tazed him. and without knowing the specifics, i can't comment as to whether or not the guy was in danger and should have been removed from the area.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:10:29 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're part of the problem

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

What MIGHT happen to agents of the state is not a valid excuse for going all Gestapo-police state on someone.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:15:58 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

So you believe it was ok to taze him then. Somebody good with statistics tell me how many officers have to answer for their own fuckups, rather than the departments hiring them? Regardless, it's common sense.

This is the complete opposite end of the spectrum of the story where the firefighters let a house burn because they didn't pay for services.

i see anecdotal evidence of officers "answering for their fuckups" all the time at work. ive also known several guys who got sued personally for bullshit. they didn't lose the cases, but they still had to deal with all kinds of hell trying to exhonerate themselves in our overly litigious society.

and nowhere did i say they should have tazed him. and without knowing the specifics, i can't comment as to whether or not the guy was in danger and should have been removed from the area.

We have too many lawyers, and its a real problem. Too much litigation.

BUT!

Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't justify a wrong action just because somebody else might do something wrong in the future.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:17:05 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The shear heat of a house fire close enough to catch another house on the fire, will negate any benefit of the water.

yep.

also, you know how often the fire dept is able to save a house that is on fire, with all of their hoses and equipment? not very often, in my experience.

this is just like all the "i'm not going to evacuate the area about to be ravaged by a hurricane, i can tough it out".

then my ass has to go in there in waist deep shit water full of downed power lines to get them out.

you want to be self reliant? fine, go for it. but dont turn around and get sue happy when you fuck yourself up.

But his house isn't on fire. He has an exposure that is close to a fire. If he is able to apply water to that exposure then he might be able to keep the exposure from igniting.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:17:51 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

That would be his choice to make.

Yep. If the FD was already there, I could see the guy interfering and thus breaking the law. But if everyone is standing around and watching, what would I care if a moron wants to go spray water on it, no matter how innefective. I'll tell him that he's making a terrible mistake, but am I going to actually use force to stop him? Absolutely not.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:17:52 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

If Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) established the police have no duty to protect individuals, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals, what's the beef?

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:18:19 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

dude

But remember, calling for harm to come to a police officer is a ban-able offense.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:19:36 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

If Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) established the police have no duty to protect individuals, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals, what's the beef?

sigh.

people always bring that up on this site. that ruling does not mean what you think it does if you think it is applicable here.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:19:43 AM EDT

[#22]

Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:20:42 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.

Legally, Officers are not obligated to help you (or protect you) - they can choose to intervene when they see fit. However, they must also be able to exercise control over you at all times - this gentleman was clearly out of control, not responsive to commands from his superiors / Officers of the Law - and thus tazed.

He did not respect their authorita!

(or maybe the firefighters were there and he was getting in the way?) It's also illegal for you to hurt yourself - they hurt you to protect you... from hurting yourself. Kind of like a high-speed pursuit through residential areas to catch... a speeder.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:21:17 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

dude

But remember, calling for harm to come to a police officer is a ban-able offense.

thats what the guy wanted to do right, go back and fight the fire?

if he wants to go back in and risk his life, thats his business. i dont think that is calling for harm to come to him.

maybe im misinterpreting trempel's post.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:22:32 AM EDT

[#25]

Remember when neighbors would band together with buckets, shovels and hoses to try and fight fires together - because it was in the best interest of the community?

Neither do I.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:24:44 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're part of the problem

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.
i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.
but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

If Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) established the police have no duty to protect individuals, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals, what's the beef?

That ruling is specific to criminal acts

Edit:

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to
remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the
part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court
stated that official police personnel and the government employing them
owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a
failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special
relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court
for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:25:46 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

I think the issue here is that the police were not in charge of his safety. They overstepped their boundaries when they decided to act as if they were.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:26:49 AM EDT

[#28]

I don't understand this let him burn mentality. From what I see the cops didn't help or let him counter a fire and then went on to assualt him. It's almost like some wish harm on the guy regardless.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:27:13 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Fucking LAWL.

I swear JBTs and their fanbois are just like Vogon's when it comes to "logic"

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:29:37 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How did he put the officers in danger, and why is he not allowed to choose to risk himself if he wants?

The guy wasn't some suicidal nutter, he knew the score and they yanked his decision from him.

+1

Should have been First Post. His house, his rules, his risk. The Popo should GTFO.

CMOS

And then sue the police for not stopping him, or not saving him.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:30:00 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

That's stretching the definition a bit. Around here, a MHH would require that the subject is a danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness. Otherwise it could be misinterpreted and used to lock up anyone who is doing something stupid. It's a fine line, but I would not be using force on someone running towards the fire.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:31:22 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Well aren't you a good sheep.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:31:25 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

dude

But remember, calling for harm to come to a police officer is a ban-able offense.

thats what the guy wanted to do right, go back and fight the fire?

if he wants to go back in and risk his life, thats his business. i dont think that is calling for harm to come to him.

maybe im misinterpreting trempel's post.

You are not. The guy should be able to do stupid shit. If he got hurt in the process, that's on him. I'm in no way wishing that he got hurt.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:32:47 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Ok, I'll say it. If you think spraying your house with a garden hose will put out or otherwise slow a structure fire, you deserve to be tased on general principle.

Tell that to the firefighters who were using some in Colorado Springs this summer.

Or to the old man and teenagers that saved my house among others in the late 90s. Ran his well off a generator.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:33:29 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're part of the problem
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ok4uND5VAYs/TAF8ZCHYuLI/AAAAAAAAAD0/4-6HwDN7NuA/s400/3+Ernie+Book.JPG

no, im not part of the problem.

i agree, if he is willing to do something stupid and risk his life so be it. that's his decision.

but im also not so naive as to think that if the police didnt act there that it wouldnt be their ass if the guy had gotten injured or killed playing dumbfuck.

If Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) established the police have no duty to protect individuals, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals, what's the beef?

That ruling is specific to criminal acts

Edit:

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.

Well then do you have a link to the case that makes police departments liable for the risk decisions made by a third party in which no special relationship exists?

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:34:32 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

That would be his choice to make.

Yep. If the FD was already there, I could see the guy interfering and thus breaking the law. But if everyone is standing around and watching, what would I care if a moron wants to go spray water on it, no matter how innefective. I'll tell him that he's making a terrible mistake, but am I going to actually use force to stop him? Absolutely not.

As a firefighter myself I agree completely.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:35:49 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If my house burns down, I hope the police tase me. Because then I'll be able to afford another house.

Seriously doubt it, good shoot, since force was used, an arrest should have been made.
Any untrained personnel, should have cleared the area to allow professionals to do their job.

It's my goddamned house! It's not their "area".

They can recommend I do the right thing. They can refuse to help me if I fail to heed them and get myself in trouble. They can't come on my property and tase me when I'm not doing anything wrong.

Do you own a fire extinguisher? Ever render first aid? Carry a gun? Why don't you just let professionals do the work?

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:36:29 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

this. instead they attempted to help the fool and will be sued over this shit.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:37:18 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've just let him go back in and burn.

dude

But remember, calling for harm to come to a police officer is a ban-able offense.

thats what the guy wanted to do right, go back and fight the fire?

if he wants to go back in and risk his life, thats his business. i dont think that is calling for harm to come to him.

maybe im misinterpreting trempel's post.

You are not. The guy should be able to do stupid shit. If he got hurt in the process, that's on him. I'm in no way wishing that he got hurt.

Then I am sorry for the assumption.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:37:47 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Interesting. You say GD is full of libs yet you are all on board with the nanny-state.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:40:45 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
We're either free, or we're not. There's no middle ground. If a man wants to act on his instincts and attempt to protect his property then he ought to be able to do it. It's his decision, whether it's a rational one or not, it's his. Why should the law be able to make that decision for him? There's way too much hand holding "for our own good" these days. Let him fight the fire, if he dies in the process then where's the problem? It's one of the ways the population used to keep itself in check.

What is the logical conclusion based on your first sentence and the facts presented?

If the man had gotten hurt or killed, the city (i.e. taxpayers) would have been the nearest lawsuit target (right or wrong, it doesn't matter, it just is).

I see your point. I'm a country boy and lawsuits are the last thing i think about, so, point made. However, there's not a whole helluva lot of distance between the government (in this case the police department) stopping a man (who i am of course assuming is posessing all of his faculties) from defending his property, and deciding that he's also not capable of managing his own healthcare or owning a gun for that matter. He might hurt, cause injury, or kill himself or someone else. My point bieng overall that we ought to be in the drivers seat when it comes to ourselves at all times. You can't be partially free. My feelings on personal liberty do not make me a liberal, or a cop hater.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:40:54 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

––SNIP––

That ruling is specific to criminal acts

Edit:

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.

Well then do you have a link to the case that makes police departments liable for the risk decisions made by a third party in which no special relationship exists?

No - I'm not sure if one exists.

If it does, I'm not OK with it.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:41:04 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Subject was a danger to himself and others. Subject was spraying his house with a garden hose in a area that he thought his house might catch fire, thus meaning he himself was in a dangerous area. While subject was in an danger area, first responders would have been obliged to save the subject, had he have trouble. Rather than the FD pulling out of the rubble, a burnt corpse, the PD deemed it necesary to remove him, before hand. Subject refused verbal orders. If verbal orders were't given, taser would not have been an option. Taser was deployed, and no injuries were reported. Sorry he had to experience a some discomfort to spare him dibilitating injuries, but that is what happens when somebody else is incharge of your safety.

Yea, sorry man, I'm not one of those that thinks we are here to protect people from themselves.

Bad taaza.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:42:51 AM EDT

[#44]

edit: saw the "only specific to criminal act" post.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:43:38 AM EDT

[#45]

Didn't CrazyRayRay start a thread with really insane personal shit? I could be wrong but I'm getting the impression that he's either mentally ill or a huge troll. I'll try to dig up the thread.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:45:03 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Fucked over laws and sue happy lawyers are the reason for this.

The officers them selves were put in a tough spot and had to taze him. To do otherwise would be disasterous for their career and the department as sue happy survivors will feast upon such an opportunity.

Don't put this off on lawyers. The blame goes to the morons who's authority was disrespected and, like attack dogs, felt the need to pounce. Anybody with a shred of common sense would have let the guy do what he needed to do and this wouldn't be news. Better yet, they could've maybe helped instead of standing by.

yeah, put out a house fire with a garden hose?

that's not gonna happen. firemen put out fires because they have the equipment to do so, the police dont.

One of our cops seriously contained or put out a decent kitchen fire with a garden hose this summer while we were setting up. I was on the truck team. A good truckie can do wonders with a water can. A garden hose is fairly sufficient in most situations...and to protect an exposure from sparks and whatnot, it'll work. It's better than nothing.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:45:15 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Didn't CrazyRayRay start a thread with really insane personal shit? I could be wrong but I'm getting the impression that he's either mentally ill or a huge troll. I'll try to dig up the thread.

Posted: 11/13/2012 10:47:17 AM EDT

[#48]

He wasn't spraying the burning house, that wasn't his, he was spraying his own house trying to prevent it from catching fire. Just to clarify for people who obviously want to jump to conclusions. The police probably caused more problems for the firefighters by being in the way then the guy hosing off his roof did.