Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:  You guy's have such mellow conversations here. So civil like and polite. You want to learn to talk shit check out to W.A. forum. That's because we can still sit at the bar and smoke, drink and play video poker. Not to mention, we can actually use our fun Class 3 toys...

Bada Bing Double Zing...................

Might as well keep movin on up to Canada....

KGW.com - Man tasered by PDX police died of drug overdose

I have come to the conclusion that [Timothy] Grant died of a cocaine overdose with excited delirium and taser application was not a cause of his death,” said Oregon State Medical Examiner Karen Gunson. “Would he have died without the taser? Yes, in my opinion.

Quoted: Don't get sick overdose on cocaine in Portland, or you may end up dead from a drug overdose after being tazered to death for fighting with the police after they attempt to stop you from running in and out of traffic and causing an accident ...

Fixed it for you.  

I have come to the conclusion that [Timothy] Grant died of a cocaine overdose with excited delirium and taser application was not a cause of his death,” said Oregon State Medical Examiner Karen Gunson. “Would he have died without the taser? Yes, in my opinion.




Shocking....hock.gif

Nice thread...

You know, just today I watch a video someone sent me of a drunk not listening to a cop and getting tazered.  Over and over.  I think the cop hit him 4 times with the tazer.  The guy just kept trying to get up and fight with the cop.  And guess what.  In the end, the cop slapped the cuffs on him.

I actually enjoy watching those videos.  I cheer and yell, "Hit him again!!".

Some people have it coming.

Put yourself in the "victims" shoes.  If a cop asks me to do something, I do it.  Why fight, you aren't gonna win.  He will just call for his buddies and you will get yourself in more trouble.

If you are high out of your mind and not listening, you chose to get high out of your mind and therefore lead yourself down that path.

If, as some of you think of this guy, I was sick and needed aid.  But was flailing around and making it difficult or impossible for the cops to help me.  I would WANT them to hit me with the tazer.  Then they can help me.  It is better than allowing me to hurt myself or others, or do something that will get me into more trouble, or do something that I would regret for the rest of my life.

Lets face it, medicine kills people sometimes, cars kill people sometimes.  Tazers are gonna kill people sometimes.  But it is a necessary tool.

The cops could either tazer you and apprehend you, or they could gang up on you, start smashing your head into the ground with their feet, twist your arms, etc.  I have seen the way they go after some of these crazy people on that show cops and I tell you what, I would rather them hit me with the tazer than gang rush my ass.

So, as last parting words...  "Hit him again!!!"

How to not get your ass kicked by the police video

ETA New link

Listening to NPR on the way home from work, the medical examiner said the guy had 6X what they consider a fatal amount of coke in his blood.  kinda hard to see him as a victim.

Quoted: How to not get your ass kicked by the police video ETA New link

+1

Spambo

Quoted: How to not get your ass kicked by the police video ETA New link

LOL. "Everybody knows, if the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass kicking with them."

did anyone take that bet?  

who owes me money in here?  

6x a lethal dose of coke.  

Quoted: You know, just today I watch a video someone sent me of a drunk not listening to a cop and getting tazered.  Over and over.  I think the cop hit him 4 times with the tazer.  The guy just kept trying to get up and fight with the cop.  And guess what.  In the end, the cop slapped the cuffs on him.

I love that video.  I think it is from Ohio.

Not because the dumb-ass take like 5 rides...  (although I do grin when I watch it) but because it is a perfect application of a taser.  the guy is drunk and running to his truck and clearly intent on launching his drunk ass down the highway in his F250.  the taser allows the trooper to stop him quickly and cleanly with no injury to either of them.  OC or an ass beating, the guy could still get in the truck....  then he'd just be drunk driving and either blinded by OC or have a lump on his head or both.

The news out of the Medford / Grants Pass area reported that the man (mid to late 40's) lived in Medford - with his parents - was in town for his sister's wedding. Given the area where the incedent happened given we are taking a 40 yr old that lives with his parents, given that he was there for an event that can elict strong emotional responses.......


So my question to those that were so down in the mouth on PDX Blue: at what point does one need to take responsibility for themself, for their actions, for their own life?

Liberal America has been sold a bill of goods - it doesn't take a village. You are responsible for yourself.


Good Luck

So, PDX now apparently employs cops who can, at a glance determine the difference between illness, poisoning and an overdose of illegal drugs?

What it turned out to be is completely irrelevant. You do not use brutal JBT methods on someone who is in obvious distress whatever the reason - UNLESS - there is an obvious danger to someone.

In this case, it appears to have been the usual PDX cop reaction to anyone who, for whatever reason, doesn't imediately throw thenselves face down on the ground and grovel at their feet when so ordered.

So someone still lives at home with his parents -- an obvious mental cripple, so its perfectly ok to abuse him?

This was just WRONG. And if you can't see that, then you have problems.
Its fine to give the police a bit of latitude in how they behave, but the current heavy-handed approach is just going too far.

So if paramedics had been first on the scene do you think they would have tazered him?
Obviously not. Ever been in a hospital emergency room and seen people resisting those trying to help them because they are in so much pain/distress that they don't realise what is going on?? Do these people get tazered? Should they? Ok if its YOU ???

If a bunch of doghnut-fed cops can't subdue an unarmed, distressed person without resorting to these sorts of methods then they need to looking for alternative employment.

Quoted: So, PDX now apparently employs cops who can, at a glance determine the difference between illness, poisoning and an overdose of illegal drugs? What it turned out to be is completely irrelevant. You do not use brutal JBT methods on someone who is in obvious distress whatever the reason - UNLESS - there is an obvious danger to someone. In this case, it appears to have been the usual PDX cop reaction to anyone who, for whatever reason, doesn't imediately throw thenselves face down on the ground and grovel at their feet when so ordered. So someone still lives at home with his parents -- an obvious mental cripple, so its perfectly ok to abuse him? This was just WRONG. And if you can't see that, then you have problems. Its fine to give the police a bit of latitude in how they behave, but the current heavy-handed approach is just going too far. So if paramedics had been first on the scene do you think they would have tazered him? Obviously not. Ever been in a hospital emergency room and seen people resisting those trying to help them because they are in so much pain/distress that they don't realise what is going on?? Do these people get tazered? Should they? Ok if its YOU ??? If a bunch of doghnut-fed cops can't subdue an unarmed, distressed person without resorting to these sorts of methods then they need to looking for alternative employment.

The individual WAS an obvious danger to himself, bystanders, and motorists in the street.  He refused to listen to the cops, and presented a threat to everyone around.  RUNNING THROUGH THE STREET IN TRAFFIC is a danger to someone.

Fucking damn right the cops tased him, and completely in the right

I wish I coulda put the juice to him myself. Poor dopehead got tazed, thats too bad.hy

These are the people and those that feel bad for them and say, "Oh don't hurt them, maybe we should just love them." Are the ones that are causing this country to decay from the inside out. YOU ARE A DISGRACE, YOU HIPPIE, TREEHUGGING, GIVE PEACE A CHANCE PUSSIES.

Give the electric chair a chance in my opinion. Bring back chain gangs, hard labor. Take away cable tv, internet, DVDS, and all the other conveniences that prisons have. I have an(glad to say) EX-brother in law that went to the slammer and when he got out he said he almost wished he could go back(which he did) because he said prison was like a vacation. No worries no bills no responsibilities.

People should be scared to go to prison. The thought of prison should make people piss themselves and maybe we would have a stronger society. You hippies make me sick.

Phil - if you want to discuss this in a mature and civil manner I will be happy to do so but if you want people to take you seriously, you might want to crank the rhetoric down a notch.  Just a suggestion.  Take it for what it is worth.

You sound like you have some issues to work through with authority figures or maybe you had a bad experience with PPB.

Quoted: So, PDX now apparently employs cops who can, at a glance determine the difference between illness, poisoning and an overdose of illegal drugs?

I think that is the point.  

The guy was in medical distress of an undetermined nature.  

He appeared to be in danger and endangering the people driving on Sandy Blvd.  and the police tried to help him.  You seem to be taking some leaps with your logic.  Like the police just walked up to him and tased him without trying to talk to him.

I can imagine if he had been struck and killed by a car and the person driving the car swerved, struck a phone pole and was ejected through the window and paralyzed for the rest of their life.  PPB spokes person would be on TV "well, we would have helped him but he refused our help and some guy on the internet posted that we shouldn't be too aggressive. Golly, we didn't want to risk possibly being rude to him so we couldn't get him detained and keep him from killing himself.”  

What it turned out to be is completely irrelevant. You do not use brutal JBT methods on someone who is in obvious distress whatever the reason - UNLESS - there is an obvious danger to someone.

I agree, what it turned out to be is irrelevant.  The police should have acted the same way in the same circumstances no matter what the root cause of the guy foaming at the mouth and running around in traffic.

In this case, it appears to have been the usual PDX cop reaction to anyone who, for whatever reason, doesn't imediately throw thenselves face down on the ground and grovel at their feet when so ordered.

I pointed this out when you initially posted this article but you don’t seem interested in addressing any of the facts of this situation.  

It is not about the cops making someone bend to their will or 'grovel'.  It was about getting someone out of traffic for their safety and the safety of others on the road.   The guy who eventually died resisted and the cops escalated the situation.  All he had to do was get out of the street and the police would have got him medical attention.

I know it doesn't play as well with your pre-conceived notion of the cops just trying to bully people...

This was just WRONG. And if you can't see that, then you have problems. Its fine to give the police a bit of latitude in how they behave, but the current heavy-handed approach is just going too far.

On one hand you want the police to physically subdue a person who is actively resisting but out of the other side of your mouth you label any attempt to do so heavy handed and brutal.  Which is it?  Either physically overpower him or use a tool to do the same thing that reduces the chances of hurting the person being subdued.

Can you suggest an alternative?   They had 3 guys trying to subdue him.  He was a grown man, with a shit-load of drugs on board.  Do you think he may have been able to exhibit extraordinary strength and determination?  You think the cops maybe tried the gentle way first?  

So if paramedics had been first on the scene do you think they would have tazered him? Obviously not. Ever been in a hospital emergency room and seen people resisting those trying to help them because they are in so much pain/distress that they don't realise what is going on?? Do these people get tazered? Should they? Ok if its YOU ???

Also pointed out on page 1 of this thread,  EMT won't go near him when he is acting crazy and resisting.  they wont taser him or subdue him because they won't come near him!

I've seen people acting un-cooperatively in a hospital.  They don't do anything.  If a person actually gets up and tries to walk out.  The hospital has no authority to detain a person... so they don't.  Your analogy is totally invalid.

If a bunch of doghnut-fed cops can't subdue an unarmed, distressed person without resorting to these sorts of methods then they need to looking for alternative employment.

You must live in an insulated world with little exposure to violent physical confrontations.  heavy handed?  brutal?  

I don't think you have seen the alternatives to the taser up close and personal.  The longer the cops have to wrestle and man handle someone the more the chance of the encounter increasing to another level of violence increases.

I'll tell you what, you and 2 of your friends can come to the gym and try to get me on the ground and into a gurney.  In the process, keep me from hurting any of you or myself. I’ll give you a hand up; I won't even ingest a bunch of coke and we won't be doing it on asphalt in the middle of a busy street.

Quoted: I'll tell you what, you and 2 of your friends can come to the gym and try to get me on the ground and into a gurney.  In the process, keep me from hurting any of you or myself.

Can I kick you in the baby maker first?

In all honesty, I agree with Gackman here. While I've never been forcibly detained, we've all watched Cops (groan, I know). At first it looks like, "Damn, there's 6 cops there to arrest one guy!"

Let's say that guy was me and I was being a real prick. Now there's only one cop. I start fighting. It no longer becomes about arresting/detaining me; it now turns into the cop defending themselves. I get shot, clubbed up the side of the head, an old sports injury torn to pieces, or something else broken. Now, the alternative: Tazering. Ouch, but no permamnent damage in 99.94% of cases.

Now, let's start with a slightly different scenario. Me against 6 cops. I'd like to think I could put up a decent fight, so say I clock one in the head, and gouge some skin off another before I'm put on the ground and sat on. Still messy.

A Tazer isn't perfect, but if it is applied correctly at the right time, it is probably beneficial to both parties.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:  You guy's have such mellow conversations here. So civil like and polite. You want to learn to talk shit check out to W.A. forum. That's because we can still sit at the bar and smoke, drink and play video poker. Not to mention, we can actually use our fun Class 3 toys...   Bada Bing Double Zing................... Might as well keep movin on up to Canada....

Is it to late to start the popcorn?


Mark.

Ok, seems some people just don't want to see the point I am making.

But lets answer Gackman, since he was (mostly) reasonable in his posting:

He appeared to be in danger and endangering the people driving on Sandy Blvd. and the police tried to help him. You seem to be taking some leaps with your logic. Like the police just walked up to him and tased him without trying to talk to him. I can imagine if he had been struck and killed by a car and the person driving the car swerved, struck a phone pole and was ejected through the window and paralyzed for the rest of their life. PPB spokes person would be on TV "well, we would have helped him but he refused our help and some guy on the internet posted that we shouldn't be too aggressive. Golly, we didn't want to risk possibly being rude to him so we couldn't get him detained and keep him from killing himself.”

No, when they tazered him, he was on the ground being held down by three police officers.
According to the eye witness, he was tazered because he would not turn over onto his back.
He was no danger to himself, or anyone else at that point, he was just not doing what they wanted in as fast as they wanted.

The stuff about making cars swerve etc. is just a red herring -- I could say the same about someone at a crossing going against the lights -- maybe they all need tazering? (Lets not get side tracked on this one...)

You sound like you have some issues to work through with authority figures or maybe you had a bad experience with PPB.

No. I have problems with abuse of authority.

It is not about the cops making someone bend to their will or 'grovel'. It was about getting someone out of traffic for their safety and the safety of others on the road. The guy who eventually died resisted and the cops escalated the situation. All he had to do was get out of the street and the police would have got him medical attention. I know it doesn't play as well with your pre-conceived notion of the cops just trying to bully people...

The cops are the ones who escalated. The victim was in no position to do so.
They made an arbitrary decision that they wanted him on his back, and he was going do do that no matter what.

On one hand you want the police to physically subdue a person who is actively resisting but out of the other side of your mouth you label any attempt to do so heavy handed and brutal. Which is it? Either physically overpower him or use a tool to do the same thing that reduces the chances of hurting the person being subdued. Can you suggest an alternative? They had 3 guys trying to subdue him. He was a grown man, with a shit-load of drugs on board. Do you think he may have been able to exhibit extraordinary strength and determination? You think the cops maybe tried the gentle way first?

Handcuffs. If three fit and well trained cops can't get the cuffs on someone then there is a problem somewhere.

I don't believe there was any evidence of abnormal strength - thats another red herring.
Coke does not have that effect -- just the opposite in fact.

I'll tell you what, you and 2 of your friends can come to the gym and try to get me on the ground and into a gurney. In the process, keep me from hurting any of you or myself. I’ll give you a hand up; I won't even ingest a bunch of coke and we won't be doing it on asphalt in the middle of a busy street.

No thanks
I am not trained or paid to take those risks - cops are.
If they don't want to take those risks, they need to quit.
Otherwise, they can feel threatened by anyone at any time, and use whatever force they want -- and apparently a few of them do.

On NoAim's point about a tazer being ok because ist mostly harmless -- it isn't. The problem is, as I think Gackman said earlier, its an escalation, and it better be part of a planned escalation approach, and that can lead to the application of deadly force.

Doing what I just complained about Gackman doing -- playing "what if" -- what if the guy was so enraged by the tazer that he started swinging at the police, who would probably have responded with bullets. The guy would end up dead because he refused to turn over when ordered to do so. That is not reasonable.

Quoted: Quoted: Ok, seems some people just don't want to see the point I am making. Not that anyone doesn't see it, we seem to just disagree with some of the points of it.

Ok... you are free to do so.

No, when they tazered him, he was on the ground being held down by three police officers. According to the eye witness, he was tazered because he would not turn over onto his back. He was no danger to himself, or anyone else at that point, he was just not doing what they wanted in as fast as they wanted. The stuff about making cars swerve etc. is just a red herring -- I could say the same about someone at a crossing going against the lights -- maybe they all need tazering? (Lets not get side tracked on this one...) He was already reported to be out in traffic, was not cooperating, so what's to say that if some amount of force had not been applied that he would not have ran back into the street?

Again - playing a what-if game. He wasn't doing any such thing, and are you saying that people in the street in traffic are fair tazer targets?

The cops are the ones who escalated. The victim was in no position to do so. The VICTIM SUSPECT had already escalated the situation by not conforming to what the officers asked of him.  The officers reacted to the situation and adapted.  I'll also add, that due to the lack of anything negative from the dept on the officers actions it must have been to protocol.

Not a suspect - there was no hint of any lawbreaking at this point.

I am not trained or paid to take those risks - cops are. If they don't want to take those risks, they need to quit. That above statment to me makes your whole post reek of irony.

Why? The police do a dangerous job, and are trained and paid to do that job.
That does not give them any excuse to use unreasonable force just because they think they may be threatened. Not any more than it does you or me. If they ARE threatened, in a clear and overt way then they have as much right to defend themselves as you or I - that much, and no more.

Noaim's point about a tazer being ok because ist mostly harmless -- it isn't. The problem is, as I think Gackman said earlier, its an escalation, and it better be part of a planned escalation approach, and that can lead to the application of deadly force. Or it may end the escalation and not allow it to get to the point where deadly force is looked at as an option Why escalate? There were plenty of other options including holding up the traffic (horror of horrors!!!) ans letting him bumble around until he was off the road. Again, remember he has committed no crime other than perhaps a misdemeanor jaywalking offence (if we have that in OR). Doing what I just complained about Gackman doing -- playing "what if" -- what if the guy was so enraged by the tazer that he started swinging at the police, who would probably have responded with bullets. The guy would end up dead because he refused to turn over when ordered to do so. That is not reasonable. In that assumption you made above, to me, you seem to miss the obvious part.  If in fact the situation had turned out that way and the use of deadly force was used, it wouldn't be becuase of his lack of turning over, it would be for his attempted assault of the officers.  But, I guess you think they need to stand and take thier licks then?

No. But that never happened. There was never any indication of assault, just someone so out of it (dying as it turns out) that he didn't obey the police in a way and as fast as they wanted.

Bottom line is, untill people wear a reader board across thier chests that states mental state, health and related issues, there will always be the chance that the person will have a larger than normal negative reaction to whatever non-lethal force is applied.  Whether it is pepper spray on an asthmatic person, putting someone with a pace maker down hard or whatever, it's a risk, but a small one at that.   A guy with a heart condition whacked out on coke, I'm pretty sure that's a scenario that most departments do not train for.  Given the situation, I do think that what  the police did was correct.  It is unfortunate that the individual passed.  Not the departments fault that he had a medical condition and liked nose candy.  Had those two issues not been present, the outcome would be totally different.

When justified, the use of pepper spray, tazer, batton, or gun by a police officer on someone who is not obviously infirm is ok with me. And as you say, if they have some condition which causes the effect to be more severe than it is reasonable to anticipate, then, well, thats just too bad. They should not have given the police the justification in the first place.

You see, this is the part where I think we have the problem. You (the plural you in this case, not just Peta) see this guy as a criminal fighting arrest. if that were the case, I would be in 100% agreement. Instead, I see someone who has committed no crime, in an obvious state of panic/fear/illness/whatever getting zapped because he disobeyed someone who he may not even have been in a fit state to recognize as a police officer.

“Would he have died without the taser? Yes, in my opinion.

Police sympathiser........



I think any cop who kills some one should goto trial just like any other civillan....make em think twice before wippin out the Glock.

Not mee there bud, that was quoted from the Oregon State Medical Examiner.

Wow, it was quoted in RED too....

They do not run around with reckless abandon shooting and tazing folks left and right w/o just cause.  I cannot imagine what it must be like to work for the most visible, most watched and most criticized professions out there.  I'm sure you would have to make sure everything was by the book or ya wouldn't be there

Portland has one of the highest if not the highest cops killing people then any city in the US.

Quoted: Quoted: When justified, the use of pepper spray, tazer, batton, or gun by a police officer on someone who is not obviously infirm is ok with me. And as you say, if they have some condition which causes the effect to be more severe than it is reasonable to anticipate, then, well, thats just too bad. They should not have given the police the justification in the first place. Oh, so let me see if I understand that mentality there.  The fact that they may encounter a few percent of the population with health problems which may in fact have a negative outcome of the use of a tazer constitutes not using them?  Better yet, let's break down that few percent and see just how many of them are in the "bracket" that this tool was designed for use upon? If we all believed in that mentality, then you should not drive a car then either.  You may end up hitting a squirell or some other creature that does not deserve it.

Go back and read what I wrote (as opposed to what you thought I was going to write).
We actually agree here.

As plainly as I can put it: If someone gives the police justifiable reason to use force, upto and including deadly force as a measured response to the justification given, then if they have some infirmity which causes any non-lethat response to have a greater effect than it would have done on a normal, healthy person, than thit is just their plain bad luck -- they should not have given the police office justification to react in that way.

Clear enough? I hope?

You see, this is the part where I think we have the problem. You (the plural you in this case, not just Peta) see this guy as a criminal fighting arrest. if that were the case, I would be in 100% agreement. Instead, I see someone who has committed no crime, in an obvious state of panic/fear/illness/whatever getting zapped because he disobeyed someone who he may not even have been in a fit state to recognize as a police officer. Phillip, why was he fighting arrest?  WHACKED OUT ON COKE?????????  Guess that's legal then?  Guess that the police did not take into account that this guy may be messed up or whacked out on some form of drug?  Hell yeah they did.  And to add to that, it probably passed thru thier mind all the stories you hear/read about folks messed up on whatever drugs being un-fazed by force and in some instances absorbing a good deal of lead.  They train for that, to take all scenarios into account and how to limit the suspect's avenues for escape or control of the situation.   I'm not going to feel sorry for the guy as he obviousley didn't give a crap about himself enough to think twice about frying his brain cells on some nose candy.  Was he in control of his situation?  No, but by means of a choice that he made.  He was a danger to the motorists when he was darting in and out of traffic.  He was a danger to the officers there the second he decided to not comply with thier orders.  Not gonna mention a danger to himself as I already stated, he didn't seem to care that much about himself anyways. 6x a lethal dose of coke  ME is quoted as saying that she has come to the conclusion that [Timothy] Grant died of a cocaine overdose with excited delirium and taser application was not a cause of his death,” said Oregon State Medical Examiner Karen Gunson. “Would he have died without the taser? Yes, in my opinion". Like I said, it's unfortunate that the individual passed away.  I do still stand on my statment that what happened was justified given the amount of detail I've seen and read so far.

And as I said before - they didn't know he was "whacked out on coke". he could have drunk a bottle of Drano thinking it was Cocacola -- who knows? They certainly didn't.

He wasn't darting in and out of traffic - he was lying on the floor face down with three police officers on top of him. How could he have been fighting arrest? He had comitted no crime. At least one that they knew of at that time.

All of what you say is correct, but only IF he had committed any crime and if he was resisting arrest.
He wasn't .

Normally they want you on your face so they can handcuff your hands behind you. In this case they wanted him on his back, and his refusal to do so, probably because he was choking, is not (IMHO) a justifiable reason to tazer him.

This boils down to one simple thing:

Do you believe that a distressed person, obviously ill should be tazered for disobeying an order of a police office to orient his body the way that policeman wants?

If you think this is reasonable, then as I said right at the beginning -- just never be taken ill in Portland.

Quoted: The stuff about making cars swerve etc. is just a red herring -- I could say the same about someone at a crossing going against the lights -- maybe they all need tazering? (Lets not get side tracked on this one...)

I was just pointing out tha the was a danger to himself and others.  a jaywalker is a danger too, but they try to avoid the cars (generally).  Plus, a rational, non-foaming at the mouth, non-gibberish speaking, non-restiting jay-walker would get out of the street when they were done crossing and the cops would wag their finger at him and send him on his way without indicent.

Quoted: This boils down to one simple thing: Do you believe that a distressed person, obviously ill should be tazered for disobeying an order of a police office to orient his body the way that policeman wants? If you think this is reasonable, then as I said right at the beginning -- just never be taken ill in Portland.

yes.

I say that having been both tased and having been in quite a few knock down drag out fights in assorted 3rd world countries while sipping the juice of the barley ;)   If I was resisting the cops for whatever reason...  PLEASE tase me and don't hurt me.  

I wasn't there, but from the sound of it, they were trying to get the guy flipped over to they could get him into handcuffs.  The choice is to overpower the guy or give him a little touch tase and out pops the hand.  Remember, this is an irrational person - resisting the cops.  

I think that the purpose and effect of the taser is not clear to you.  It isn't a medieval torture device.  It is pain compliance technique.   It is no different than using a pressure point.  Example: you won’t pull your hand out, the cops can lay a Vulcan Death Grip on you and you’ll figure out that shit hurts and eventually move your arm.  Or they can OC you.  That stuff hurts, it distracts you, and you can’t see,  The idea is to get people to believe that is no condition to keep fighting.

However, unlike those other pain compliance techniques, the taser isn’t permanent, it doesn't’ even bruise or damage tissue.  It doesn’t take an hour to wear off or need decon like OC.  Zzzap! ouch, it turns off and the pain is over.  No different than using a pressure point, pinching some skin, etc.

On the other had, having 3 cops yank your arm out from underneath you while being pretzel-fied at the bottom of a polyester piggy pile is not just a little un pleasant.  Imagine arm wrestling 3 large grown men at once.  You are going to get hurt no matter how ‘nicely’ they try to over power you.  Taser is a better tool.

Quoted: I think any cop who kills some one should goto trial just like any other civillan....make em think twice before wippin out the Glock.

they do, when charged.

just like joe citizen involved in a good shoot never gets charged or has to go to trial either.  remember, there are plenty of defensive gun uses in the country each day and those citizens don't get charged with any crimes.

anyway, good discussion.  even if we don't agree.

Quoted: Portland has one of the highest if not the highest cops killing people then any city in the US.

Sorry - that can not go unchecked -

Cite please?

And while we are on the subject (JBT) how about a cite for assualts by LE

I think you will that there are numerous communities within America in which tension and out right abuse occurs at far greater rates.

Since you stated it as a fact - show the cite.