Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/19/2001 4:00:54 PM EDT
[url]http://www.uniontrib.com/news/metro/20011219-9999_7m19taser.html[/url] [i] CHULA VISTA -- Authorities are investigating the death of a 6-month-old fetus whose mother had been shot in the back with a Taser gun by police last week. The fetus, a female, was determined to be dead Thursday by the Medical Examiner's Office, Chula Vista police said. Two days earlier, police had responded to a dispute at a home on Monterey Avenue and fired the device at the woman when she refused to comply with officers' orders. The gun fires darts designed to incapacitate a person with a high-voltage electrical charge. Though meant to cause discomfort and the muscles to seize, the weapons have the potential to kill. The cause of death remains under investigation. Police Lt. Don Hunter said yesterday that "there is nothing to indicate that the Taser had anything to do with the death of the fetus at this point." The fetus had no signs of trauma, but it did have "some type of abnormality" to the umbilical cord, Hunter said. "But they're not quite sure how significant it is," he said. The woman could not be reached for comment yesterday. Police who saw the 36-year-old woman said they didn't know she was pregnant until after she had been hit, Hunter said. The incident started just after 11 a.m. Dec. 11, when police went to a home on Monterey Avenue to investigate a report of a man and a woman fighting. When police arrived, they found the woman, her two brothers and a friend outside. The woman was screaming and appeared hysterical, police said. After the woman saw police, she tried to run into the house. One of her brothers blocked her, and they started pushing each other, police said. Police, believing she was the suspect in the dispute for which they were called, repeatedly ordered the woman to stop. But she refused, police said. The woman made a second attempt to get into the house. An officer pulled out his Taser, told her to stop and then fired when she ignored his commands, Hunter said. The woman was hit on the back and fell to the ground. It was then that "someone yelled that she was pregnant," Hunter said. The woman was taken to a hospital, where she was treated and released. She was not arrested. Two days later, the Medical Examiner's Office notified police that the fetus was dead. The fetus was delivered Saturday, the office said. The woman's condition between the time of her release and the time the fetus was determined to be dead is part of the investigation. Hunter would not release the name of the officer who fired the gun but said no discipline was taken against the three-year veteran. "It was an appropriate use of the Taser, consistent with how the officers are trained," he said. Yesterday evening, no one answered the door of the one-story home on Monterey Avenue. Inside lights were on, as was the driveway light. A small candle burned next to the walkway to the front door. [/i]
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 4:17:29 PM EDT
if she didn't she was pregnant until after this thing happened, how was it someone else yelled "she's pregnant" when she went down?? No_Expert
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 4:24:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 4:31:25 PM EDT
As a semi-expert in this area, there are multiple causes that I can see in this event. Without actually seeing the fetus, cord and placenta, I really cant pin-point which. 1. The taser would cause severe contraction of the smooth muscles of the uterus causing what is known as an ABRUPTION. This occurs when the placenta separates from the uterine wall. The fetus suffocates. 2. The pushing involved with her brother could have caused physical trauma to the abdomen, also causing an abruption. 3. There may have been drugs involved. Cocaine is a known cause of abruption. 4. The cord had an abnormality. It may have knotted and caused the flow of blood to be interrupted. This is known as a CORD ACCIDENT. 5. The death could be not related to this event at all. There are a multitude of reason that a fetus dies in the second trimester. Autoimmune disease for example. The placenta will show evidence of an abruption. Cord accidents also usually leave evidence. The fetus will show signs of hypoxia. Well, this sounds bad but the the fact that the fetus died will cause the Police to be dinged less if they lose. A live cripple is worth millions of dollars. A dead baby usually settles for much less. Unfortunately these are the facts about litigation these days. Ambulance chasers will drool for a case like this.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 4:36:10 PM EDT
Have you guys ever watched "COPS"? The women are always the ones resisting arrest. For some reason they think they are not subject to arrest and handcuffing. Some of them get pretty aggressive. Sounds to me like the cops used enough force to incapacitate her, and had no idea she was pregnant. Very unfortunate about the baby but I am sure if they knew she was pregnant it would have been handled differently. Either way I am sure a big payout is coming.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 4:39:07 PM EDT
They should have never tasered the woman in the first place. Regardless of the reason the baby died they should have to pay an enormous amount of money. Money seems to be the only thing that most departments understand these days and using a potentially lethal weapon on someone who they only "believed was the suspect" is uncalled for. She apparently showed no signs of aggression towards the officers and they had no right to use any type of potentially lethal force on her.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 4:43:09 PM EDT
I agree with Ponyboy. Peppergas may have been more appropriate or just tackle to the ground. However, we were not there and dont know about the tactical situation.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 4:58:05 PM EDT
A taser is not a potenitally lethal weapon. Pepper spray is more likely to cause a fatal rection than a Taser. As far as "tackling" goes, most agencies teach and advocate "hands-off" for use of force, if at all possible. Verbal commands (loud, clear and repeated, OC spray, more verbal, and then hands-on, are the preferred methods. Using less hands on leads to far fewer injuries to the suspects and to officers. The use of force in this incident sounds proper to me. The person responsible for the incident is the lady, because her actions caused the police to use force. Out of every few thousand or so use of force incidents, Murphy's Law gets invoked and something bizarre and sometimes tragic happens. The only way around this is for the suspects to comply, and the police won't have to use any force.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:09:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: A taser is not a potenitally lethal weapon. Pepper spray is more likely to cause a fatal rection than a Taser.
View Quote
So you are telling me that a taser cannot kill someone? Here is just one example: [b] Man dies after police stun him HAMILTON OHIO — A Forest Park man who struggled with police Monday morning and was stunned twice with a Taser died shortly afterward en route to the hospital. Marvin Hendrix, 27, reportedly went into cardiac arrest in an ambulance, Hamilton police said, and was pronounced dead at Fort Hamilton Hospital. Police said they don't think the two stuns caused his death, but they and the Butler County Coroner's Office are investigating. A life squad responded to a morning call that Mr. Hendrix was ill and nauseated. A struggle ensued, and Mr. Hendrix became violently combative with both paramedics and police, authorities said. A Hamilton police supervisor used a Taser to apply a two-second stun to Mr. Hendrix, without effect, police said. A second stun calmed him, and paramedics loaded him into an ambulance, where he went into cardiac arrest. [/b] I don't think pepper spray should have been used in this incident as reported either. If she was being arrested at the time then it would be a different story. Trying to go in your house because you don't want to go to the police should not receive this type of response. If it evolves into something else, then so be it, but police shouldn't just go around shocking or pepper spraying people because they don't do what they want them to.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:15:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Trying to go in your house because you don't want to go to the police should not receive this type of response. If it evolves into something else, then so be it, but police shouldn't just go around shocking or pepper spraying people because they don't do what they want them to.
View Quote
Yeah guys, those son-of-a-bitch cops should have waited until she rushed out with a shotgun and blown one of them to smithereens before restraining her! Get with the program!
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:18:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: She apparently showed no signs of aggression towards the officers and they had no right to use any type of potentially lethal force on her.
View Quote
So if a couple of cops happen upon a rape in progress, they shouldn't intervene and try to stop it so long as the perp isn't showing any signs of aggression towards [i][b]them[/b][/i]?
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:24:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Trying to go in your house because you don't want to go to the police should not receive this type of response. If it evolves into something else, then so be it, but police shouldn't just go around shocking or pepper spraying people because they don't do what they want them to.
View Quote
Yeah guys, those son-of-a-bitch cops should have waited until she rushed out with a shotgun and blown one of them to smithereens before restraining her! Get with the program!
View Quote
I just don't agree with so called "proactive" law enforcement. By your reasoning everyone should be considered a dangerous criminal, which is the same reasoning that brings us some of the idiotic laws we have to put up with everyday. Hell, why don't cops just taser everyone they come in contact with "for their own safety" so they never have any problems? The fact of the matter is, law enforcement is a dangerous business because of the scum that they have to deal with on a daily basis. If police officers want to be completely safe during their shifts then they need to find another job, because it will never happen as long as the citizens still have rights. However, while we still have rights, it will also be an unfortunate fact that police will die while carrying out everyday mundane duties.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:27:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: She apparently showed no signs of aggression towards the officers and they had no right to use any type of potentially lethal force on her.
View Quote
So if a couple of cops happen upon a rape in progress, they shouldn't intervene and try to stop it so long as the perp isn't showing any signs of aggression towards [i][b]them[/b][/i]?
View Quote
Nope, now you are trying to put words into my mouth. Who had this lady hurt that solicited this response from the police? What is their reasoning behind the use of force? The rape in progress situation is a stupid example.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:38:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Who had this lady hurt that solicited this response from the police? What is their reasoning behind the use of force? The rape in progress situation is a stupid example.
View Quote
Hello, McFly, is anybody home? The cops were responding to a domestic disturbance call. You really don't think that a hysterical woman on the lawn of the address they were called to is able to figure why the car with blinky lights and guys with shiny badges showed up? Duh.... Given the womans refusal to obey their commands and their lack of knowledge regarding the woman's intentions in the developing situation, the officers use of non-lethal force was totally justified. Would you rather they play tiddley winks while she goes inside and kills her hubby?
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:42:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:45:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: By your reasoning everyone should be considered a dangerous criminal, which is the same reasoning that brings us some of the idiotic laws we have to put up with everyday. Hell, why don't cops just taser everyone they come in contact with "for their own safety" so they never have any problems?
View Quote
Geez, and to think you had the nerve to whine about someone else supposedly putting words into your mouth. Here's a little hint, when the cops respond to a call at your house with their lights ablinking and they kindly ask for your assistance in making a determination of the situation, it's probably best not to make any furtive moves or suddenly attempt to rush into your home.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:47:34 PM EDT
Well said, beekeeper.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:48:18 PM EDT
This is a tough one but I'm gonna have to side with the cops on it. It's tough to really know who was right without being there but the main purpose behind the use of a taser was as a non-lethal technique. If they were going to the trouble of using a taser then they certainly had no intention of using deadly force. Any woman who is six months pregnant is responsible for taking care of the fetus. This includes not drinking, smoking, drugs, or any violent activities that could endanger it. She should have been giving the baby's health the top priority and not jeopordized it by resisting the law enforcement. Jus as a rule of thumb anyway.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:50:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Who had this lady hurt that solicited this response from the police? What is their reasoning behind the use of force? The rape in progress situation is a stupid example.
View Quote
Hello, McFly, is anybody home? The cops were responding to a domestic disturbance call. You really don't think that a hysterical woman on the lawn of the address they were called to is able to figure why the car with blinky lights and guys with shiny badges showed up? Duh.... Given the womans refusal to obey their commands and their lack of knowledge regarding the woman's intentions in the developing situation, the officers use of non-lethal force was totally justified. Would you rather they play tiddley winks while she goes inside and kills her hubby?
View Quote
So you would rather them kill her unborn baby than walk into her house? What if this had been your dad and he and your mom had gotten into a yelling match and the neighbors called the cops? They show up and your dad is still pissed and doesn't want to talk and they zap him while he's walking into the house. He then later dies because the jolt has compounded his heart condition. I'd be willing to bet that you would be singing a different tune then.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:54:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: So you would rather them kill her unborn baby than walk into her house?
View Quote
As has already been said, that wasn't their intent. They didn't even know she was pregnant. Did you even read the article? If their intent was to kill, wouldn't they have used their sidearms? This is an unfortunate consequence of the woman's poor behavior.
What if this had been your dad and he and your mom had gotten into a yelling match and the neighbors called the cops? They show up and your dad is still pissed and doesn't want to talk and they zap him while he's walking into the house. He then later dies because the jolt has compounded his heart condition. I'd be willing to bet that you would be singing a different tune then.
View Quote
This lady did more than simply try to walk into her house. Did you even read the article? If my parents were this dysfuntional, I would have disowned them years ago.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 5:56:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:02:22 PM EDT
OK, tackle was a bad word. Maybe physically restrain in more appropriate. I am 100% pro LEO even when they give me tickets. But they will be responsible in the eyes of the law. Ignorance is no excuse for those saying that they didnt know. If they zap a guy with a pacemaker and he goes down, it would the same thing. They maybe criminally cleared but the tort portion is going to hurt.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:02:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: I just don't agree with so called "proactive" law enforcement. By your reasoning everyone should be considered a dangerous criminal, which is the same reasoning that brings us some of the idiotic laws we have to put up with everyday. Hell, why don't cops just taser everyone they come in contact with "for their own safety" so they never have any problems? The fact of the matter is, law enforcement is a dangerous business because of the scum that they have to deal with on a daily basis. If police officers want to be completely safe during their shifts then they need to find another job, because it will never happen as long as the citizens still have rights. However, while we still have rights, it will also be an unfortunate fact that police will die while carrying out everyday mundane duties.
View Quote
Ponyboy, LEO's have to make their contact with trash as safe as possible for themselves and the BG's. ARDOC mentioned "tackling her to the ground." Sorry, pal, but there are too many "what if's" here--what if she stuck an HIV-tainted needle into their arms during the tackle, what if she later sued for excessive force because a big LEO landed on top of the "poor little lady?" If SHE was concerned with her own progeny, why was she brawling in the front yard, then scuffling at the door, refusing to cooperate? Most of us don't see the situations LEO's get paid to deal with. We want perfect results from them all the time, when they are dealing with rapidly occurring events, with many possible variables/outcomes that cannot be foreseen, but are easy to "Monday morning quarterback." What if she ran inside and returned with a gun? Then she would have been killed, perhaps after she killed or injured someone else. If this woman cared about herself and her baby, as I said before, she should have acted like it. Screw her and her demon spawn. I'm glad I don't have to deal with crap like her. I'm also glad there are those who are willing to do so, for no thanks, and relatively little pay.
View Quote
No, I completely understand the side of the police. I am complaining about the policies at work here. I understand that they are put in some pretty hairy situations that I myself would not want to be put in. I also realize that they don't get paid shit (which is the reason I chose not to persue that particular career after I had already received a degree in criminal justice). I just don't believe in proactive policing as a policy. Many times in these domestic disturbance calls the police only compound the situation. I believe they have too much leeway in many of these circumstances. If there was evidence that a crime was committed, (calling the police to report a disturbance doesn't always mean a crime was committed) and the woman was the perp. then she should have been placed under arrest. Had she then struggled or tried to flee then I would agree with the policy to stun her, but not until she had commited a crime. If the police should be allowed to run around stunning people because they think they might commit a crime then the average Joe should be able to do the same, but that isn't the case, nor should it be. Boomer, don't even try to turn this into a cop bashing thread with me on the bad end, cause it ain't gonna work.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:05:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: As has already been said, that wasn't their intent. They didn't even know she was pregnant. Did you even read the article? If their intent was to kill, wouldn't they have used their sidearms? This is an unfortunate consequence of the woman's poor behavior.
View Quote
Piss in one hand and intend in the other and tell me which one fills up faster. If I go out and get boozed up at the bar and kill someone on the way home even though I didn't [b]intend[/b] to do you think I should just get sent on my way? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:11:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Boomer, don't even try to turn this into a cop bashing thread with me on the bad end
View Quote
Hey, you don't need any help from me in that regard. You're doing just fine on your own.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:17:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: If I go out and get boozed up at the bar and kill someone on the way home even though I didn't [b]intend[/b] to do you think I should just get sent on my way?
View Quote
Yup, that's totally relevant to this situation, isn't it? (Assuming that the cops weren't intoxicated) These cops didn't kill someone out of negligence.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:18:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Boomer, don't even try to turn this into a cop bashing thread with me on the bad end
View Quote
Hey, you don't need any help from me in that regard. You're doing just fine on your own.
View Quote
Point out one instance where I personally attacked the responding officers. If you want it provoke an arguement out of me then we can argue about the level of your reading comprehension skills. But I will still stand by my opinion that they shouldn't have stunned her.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:19:05 PM EDT
Ya know, ....... I don't like cops. I don't like them. I never really have. I have no great love for them. None of my friends are cops. I think some of them are abusive jerks. But these people have the hardest jobs in the world dealing with drunken scum so you (and I) do not have to. Yes, sometimes the represent an evil anti-constitutional govt'. But usualy they are out there in the trenches being spit on and kicked and having there uniforms ripped (which they have to pay for bye the way) by the worst scum that humanity has to offer. (and sometimes killed or crippled) Next time you need one, (when your car upside down and on fire and you can't get out on your own) try calling some drunked up hysterical trailer trash, and see if they offer help or just sip their beer and watch you burn. I don't like cops. But sometimes we need them. And most of them do the job because the want to be the good guy and make a difference. And most of them are actually good people just like you and I. Only they have an impossible job to do. If you can do it better, then I suggest you join up, and help out. I know I wouldn't be suited for their job, because I would kill the first scumbag who spit on me. Zen
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:24:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: Yup, that's totally relevant to this situation, isn't it? (Assuming that the cops weren't intoxicated) These cops didn't kill someone out of negligence.
View Quote
So they weren't negligent in stunning a pregnant woman thereby causing the death of an unborn child? In today's legal world there is no such thing as an accident, it's always somebodies fault.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:27:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Point out one instance where I personally attacked the responding officers.
How about assuming to be guilty before proven innocent? Or that they should have to pay out an enormous sum of money to the lady before the facts are even ascertained? Nope, that doesn't sound like mild cop-bashing to me.....
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:31:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: So they weren't negligent in stunning a pregnant woman thereby causing the death of an unborn child? In today's legal world there is no such thing as an accident, it's always somebodies fault.
View Quote
Yup, the police employing non-lethal force against a woman who was refusing to follow their commands, acting irrationally, and whom they were unaware was pregnant doesn't sound negligent to me. But you are right in one point. It was somebody's fault. In this instance, it would appear to be a woman who for whatever reason chose not to use any common sense.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:38:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Point out one instance where I personally attacked the responding officers.
How about assuming to be guilty before proven innocent? Or that they should have to pay out an enormous sum of money to the lady before the facts are even ascertained? Nope, that doesn't sound like mild cop-bashing to me.....
View Quote
There you go again trying to frame me with something I didn't say. Guilt and innocence plays no part in civil court where this case will eventually arrive, assuming no out of court settlements. I never said anything in regards to the officers being criminals (assuming guilt). The enormous sum of money I was referring to was directed at the department, not the individual officers. Where would they get an enormous amount of money without being independently wealthy? I stated that the only way to get departments to change their ways is to hit them in the pocketbook. Apparently, I wrongly assumed that everyone would know I was talking about suing the organization, not the individual officers, and for that I apologize. I'll be sure and spell things out a little better so that you can understand.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:43:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: Yup, the police employing non-lethal force against a woman who was refusing to follow their commands, acting irrationally, and whom they were unaware was pregnant doesn't sound negligent to me.
View Quote
Yep, a woman who was not following their command, action irrationally who to their knowledge had not broken [b]any[/b] laws, irregardless of the fact that she was pregnant.
But you are right in one point. It was somebody's fault. In this instance, it would appear to be a woman who for whatever reason chose not to use any common sense.
View Quote
It may appear that way to you, but that will be for the courts to decide. Regardless of how you see it, I'm still not going to stray from my opinion that they should not be allowed to use any force in situations such as this.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 6:59:02 PM EDT
Who was she a threat to..? The problem I have with "Non Lethal" weapons is that they are too easy to use... "I can't get you to listen to me so WHAP!!.." Was this one justified? I don’t think so.. If it was ok to zap every hysterical woman around...... [stick] Well I just leave it at that…. CG…
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 7:00:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: Yep, a woman who was not following their command, action irrationally who to their knowledge had not broken [b]any[/b] laws, irregardless of the fact that she was pregnant.
View Quote
Not following the commands is what got her stunned. THAT is against the law, and the police have a legal right to use what force they deem necessary to obtain compliance with their legally issued commands. No? A sad ending for the child, and it would be even sadder if it ended in some outrageous financial award for the mom. The lawyers get much of it, and you're right they'll be lining up, salivating to get a chance at this one. And who do yo think pays for these awards? Oh, and you're certainly entitled to your opinions, as are we all.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 7:08:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2001 7:00:58 PM EDT by Ponyboy]
Originally Posted By DScott: Not following the commands is what got her stunned. THAT is against the law, and the police have a legal right to use what force they deem necessary to obtain compliance with their legally issued commands. No?
View Quote
Not true. Can an officer walk up to you in the mall and demand you pull out your wallet and count your cash for him? And if you refuse or try to walk away is that legal grounds for him to [b]zap[/b] you? An officer can ask me to do lots of things, but he can only legally demand me to do things in certain circumstances. I don't believe circumstances such as the one being discussed should be one of those covered.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 7:38:56 PM EDT
When the cops show up, the guilty run. "But, I wasn't guilty, blah blah blah." Then why did you run for it? Turn your combativeness OFF when the guy with the badge, gun, club, peppergas and electro-stun apparatus shows up. Actions have consequences. Even If it turns out she was "in the right," her panicky flight from the cops still leaves her with a dead baby. -------- Panic kills.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 7:47:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By DScott: Not following the commands is what got her stunned. THAT is against the law, and the police have a legal right to use what force they deem necessary to obtain compliance with their legally issued commands. No?
View Quote
Not true. Can an officer walk up to you in the mall and demand you pull out your wallet and count your cash for him? And if you refuse or try to walk away is that legal grounds for him to [b]zap[/b] you? An officer can ask me to do lots of things, but he can only legally demand me to do things in certain circumstances. I don't believe circumstances such as the one being discussed should be one of those covered.
View Quote
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when an officer is conducting an investigation they have the authority to issue legal commands of this sort, right? This is one of those circumstances. Face it, she screwed up, and is now paying a huge price. The taxpayers shouldn't also have to pay for her mistake. Amazing how quick we are to bash lawyers on the one hand, then run to have them fix every perceived problem on the other...
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 8:28:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ZEN: Ya know, ....... I don't like cops. I don't like them. I never really have. I have no great love for them. None of my friends are cops. I think some of them are abusive jerks. But these people have the hardest jobs in the world dealing with drunken scum so you (and I) do not have to. Yes, sometimes the represent an evil anti-constitutional govt'. But usualy they are out there in the trenches being spit on and kicked and having there uniforms ripped (which they have to pay for bye the way) by the worst scum that humanity has to offer. (and sometimes killed or crippled) Next time you need one, (when your car upside down and on fire and you can't get out on your own) try calling some drunked up hysterical trailer trash, and see if they offer help or just sip their beer and watch you burn. I don't like cops. But sometimes we need them. And most of them do the job because the want to be the good guy and make a difference. And most of them are actually good people just like you and I. Only they have an impossible job to do. If you can do it better, then I suggest you join up, and help out. I know I wouldn't be suited for their job, because I would kill the first scumbag who spit on me. Zen
View Quote
I agree 100% and I've been a cop for 14 years.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 8:35:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 8:39:56 PM EDT
This is a different proffession than mine, but in some way I do try to understand the cop mind. On a bad day as a mechanic I get a leak back that I thought I fixed. I've never lost a wheel, THANK GOD. I did have a hoist collapse with a Caravan on it. I felt really bad about that, but it was the hoist that was defective. On a cops bad day he tasers a pregnant woman. She loses the child. Wow. That has to really have a humbling affect on your prayer life on a daily basis. That or you live in total arrogance.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 9:30:12 PM EDT
I'm a ponyboy fan on this one.. MP'd for some years...the level of threat just didn't warrant the shot. "non-lethal" does not mean non dangerous..there was a great deal of training that went with each weapon used...what it could do..and with a taser, as I remember it, you had to be shot to qualify to use.That was years ago. Cops make good and bad calls...this was a bad one
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 9:41:14 PM EDT
I'm with Ponyboy. As described here, the situation was not such that anybody needed to be stunned. Pending more detailed information, I think the officer made a bad decison. Proactive law enforcement is bad policy; it is nothing more than "the officer had to hurt somebody before somebody got hurt." Less-lethal weapons have their place, but officers should be cautious not to become too complacent and liberal in their use.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 9:54:04 PM EDT
Ponyboy, maybe you need it spelled out to you that the police arrived only have been called to the scene. There was obviously already something amiss. They needed to gain control of the situation. At this point I think the police had a legal right to detain her until they could figure out what was going on. They didn't simply pick someone out of the crowd at the mall and ask them to count the cash in their wallet and they didn't randomly pick a house with a hysterical lady in the front yard so they could have a little fun with the taser. When the police are called to a scene, they have to assume there is a reason why and act accordingly. Had she been allowed to continue back into her house only to kill herself, a family member, snipe a cop or innocent bystander, create a hostage situation, etc, would you be critical of the police for allowing that to happen as well?
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 9:55:56 PM EDT
Total irresponsibility on the womans part. When the Police show up, it's over. They have to end the disturbance in order to assess the situation. She brought this upon herself by failing to comply with verbal commands. When the Police tell you to do something, you do it. If what the Police ask of you is wrong, you deal with that situation later.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 9:57:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ponyboy: The enormous sum of money I was referring to was directed at the department, not the individual officers.
View Quote
Wow, no shit, Sherlock. In my response I used the exact same terminology that you did. Now you choose to redefine/read something else into it? Nice Clinton-like play on semantics. No wonder you harbor some sort of deep resentment towards police.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 10:04:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Proactive law enforcement is bad policy; it is nothing more than "the officer had to hurt somebody before somebody got hurt."
View Quote
So if I were to run through a shopping mall waving a gun, a you would suggest that the police do nothing about it until I actually shot somebody? Is that what you mean by not engaging in "pro-active law enforcement"? No offense, but that sounds like horse crap to me.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 10:12:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2001 10:05:09 PM EDT by Golgo-13]
No, Boomer, that isn't what I mean and you know it. Proactive law enforcement is pepper spraying/stunning/billy-clubbing somebody who MIGHT be a threat. Nobody in the incident as described WAS a threat. Don't try to paint me as a cop-basher, Boomer. My dad, aunt, and uncle were all career cops and I've been working part-time at it for almost 6 years. I don't bash my family, co-workers or myself. I do criticize departmental policies that I think are wrong. If there is no threat then there should be no use of force.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 10:14:55 PM EDT
Tazers and peppergas to me are not "force". Sorry. They are used to avoid force.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 10:16:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ShootinShane: Tazers and peppergas to me are not "force". Sorry. They are used to avoid force.
View Quote
Have you ever had either one used on you? They are from the subdivision of force called "pain compliance." Neither one is risk-free.
Link Posted: 12/19/2001 10:19:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Golgo-13: Have you ever had either one used on you? They are from the subdivision of force called "pain compliance." Neither one is risk-free.
View Quote
No, because I do what the Police tell me to do. And if I didn't, I would rather be hit with peppergas than a nightstick anyday.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top