User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 12:56:14 PM EDT
[#1]
Trolling for a 4th locked thread on the same issue, eh???
Let me be the first to say... IBTL on post 2! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 12:59:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Smells like trolling to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:16:35 PM EDT
[#3]
tastes like chicken
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:20:45 PM EDT
[#4]
mmmmmmmm.... chicken...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:21:02 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:23:09 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:25:44 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:30:05 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
tastes like chicken Fish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:31:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Looks fairly Draconian to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:38:37 PM EDT
[#10]
It is a heavily edited video clip.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:46:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
It is a heavily edited video clip. Eh, maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 1:57:13 PM EDT
[#12]
There's no maybe about the editing. The time stamp shows it.
With maybe half of the story at hand... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:01:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
It is a heavily edited video clip. Did they or did they not tase a guy who was already laying facedown, legs tangled in an officers legs (no quick escape), with his hands behind his back? He can talk all the shit he wants, he was not a physical threat to any officers safety (at the time of the tasing). The tasing was simply punitive action taken on the part of a self appointed judge for non cooperation. Non-cooperation is not illegal, resistance is. Seems an awful lot like turning fire hoses on noncombative sit-ins. Just cuff 'em & stuff 'em, there's no need for the violence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:03:57 PM EDT
[#14]
Once again, meh. Editing or not, the guy was on his stomach. Yeah, he didn't seem to want to put and keep his hands together. But, he still needed to be tased with all of those officers there? Why not just put a knee or three on his neck? I'm not arguing the fact that he was "technically" resisting, parts of which may or may have not been edited out of this video. I'm arguing that the tasing was unnecessary. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:04:45 PM EDT
[#15]
......and, we're off!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:06:51 PM EDT
[#16]
WTF? 6 cops, he passes the test, he lays in the road and they tase him?
Then they tackle and pepper spray his elderly mother. I'd rather be considered one who jumps to conclusions than be one who, accepts and defends this nazi behaviour. IBTL 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:12:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is a heavily edited video clip. Did they or did they not tase a guy who was already laying facedown, legs tangled in an officers legs (no quick escape), with his hands behind his back? He can talk all the shit he wants, he was not a physical threat to any officers safety (at the time of the tasing). The tasing was simply punitive action taken on the part of a self appointed judge for non cooperation. Non-cooperation is not illegal, resistance is. Seems an awful lot like turning fire hoses on noncombative sit-ins. Just cuff 'em & stuff 'em, there's no need for the violence. Being constantly non cooperative and perhaps combative puts everyone on edge and puts them in a spot where they might want to prepare themselves to take action. It looked to me like he may have just resisted the cuffing as both hands came off of his back @ 3:45, an officer stepped away and he put his right hand down on the ground (perhaps preparing to jump up?)right before he was tased. Was he trying to get up? If you want to make judgements based on a video that is clearly heavily edited feel free to do so. Quoted:
Once again, meh. Editing or not, the guy was on his stomach. Yeah, he didn't seem to want to put and keep his hands together. But, he still needed to be tased with all of those officers there? Why not just put a knee or three on his neck? I'm not arguing the fact that he was "technically" resisting, parts of which may or may have not been edited out of this video. I'm arguing that the tasing was unnecessary. That's all. Because then quite frankly there would be bitching that they were trying to snap his spine or choke him out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:18:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Non-cooperation is not illegal, resistance is. Incorrect. If you refuse a lawful order, you have just committed a new crime. Obstructing a LEO (gross misdemeanor). If you do it when you're under arrest, you are now resisting arrest (a misdemeanor). You don't have to be physically fighting to break the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:20:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
he passes the test, He passed because the narrator told you he did? If eets on that thar internut, it's gots to be true, paw! LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:24:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Non-cooperation is not illegal, resistance is. Incorrect. If you refuse a lawful order, you have just committed a new crime. Obstructing a LEO (gross misdemeanor). If you do it when you're under arrest, you are now resisting arrest (another gross misdemeanor). You don't have to be physically fighting to break the law. I starting to think you don't have to be doing anything to break the law. They could have just bought him a coffee and brought him home.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 2:50:48 PM EDT
[#21]
Yes, you do what your are told, then sue. If you want to get hurt, you somehow resist police officers. If you want justice, get arrested, you call the evidence into court, and make your case. If you want to sit here and try a case in the court of public opinion on someone else's website until you and/or everyone else involved looks like a jackass, then cry about how it's all bullshit, don't be surprised if folks start to think you're an idiot because you just can't let it go.
These kinds of things do best in GD anyhow. My own bias makes me wonder why an announcer with a british accent on a video clip about an incident in Georgia USA even belongs in the WAHTF, unless you are trolling, but that's just my own fucked up opinion. If you're trolling, get some lessons from PCR, because you suck at it. ETA: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:12:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Non-compliance is obstruction. Funny, most juries would find obstruction has to be an active act. Good luck proving the INTENT of the person who doesn't move. Maybe they don't hear you, understand, etc. Justice allows that there will be some legitimate reasons for non-compliance. Simply remaining where you were before encountered, or in a position you already were is not obstruction, no matter what you've justified in your head. Quoted:
Being constantly non cooperative and perhaps combative puts everyone on edge and puts them in a spot where they might want to prepare themselves to take action. Oh, I agree he was being a bit of a douche. As soon as he's an actual threat to an officer, I'm cool with pretty much whatever it takes to keep the officer safe. Simply being drunk and not moving is not a threat. But not cooperating is not the same as putting an officers safety at risk. One hand did swing wide when it was released (as I suppose most peoples would, remember that's not a natural position for a limb, plus gravity), then the officer dropped both hands and backed off for the tasing, at which point the other hand fell back onto his back. And being "on edge" is not an excusable reason for tasing someone. And it's hard to tell whether he was being limp, trying to stay stiff, or actively moving the opposite direction the officers tried to move him. Neither of the first two could convincingly be argued as endangering an officer. And using any tool, whose primary intent is to create pain, simply to induce compliance (not for officer safety) is violent coercion. Funny how we call it torture when it's being done by a spook to a spy, but it's simply "command presence" when an LEO does it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:23:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: If you're trolling, get some lessons from PCR, because you suck at it. HEY! Thanks buddy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:26:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Non-compliance is obstruction. Funny, most juries would find obstruction has to be an active act. Good luck proving the INTENT of the person who doesn't move. Maybe they don't hear you, understand, etc. Justice allows that there will be some legitimate reasons for non-compliance. Simply remaining where you were before encountered, or in a position you already were is not obstruction, no matter what you've justified in your head. ] Wow, if you're going to quote me, you should at least quote something that I actually said. But hey, whatever makes your penis feel bigger is cool. I'm so glad that you have your finger on the pulse of "most juries". You should be a statistician! For your reading enjoyment: Obstructing a law enforcement officer. (1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. (2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes. (3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor. Refusing to comply with a lawfully order elicits a hindrance and a delay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:27:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Spanky should be tased for the amount of fail in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:29:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Non-compliance is obstruction. Funny, most juries would find obstruction has to be an active act. Good luck proving the INTENT of the person who doesn't move. Maybe they don't hear you, understand, etc. Justice allows that there will be some legitimate reasons for non-compliance. Simply remaining where you were before encountered, or in a position you already were is not obstruction, no matter what you've justified in your head. ] Wow, if you're going to quote me, you should at least quote something that I actually said. But hey, whatever makes your penis feel bigger is cool. I'm so glad that you have your finger on the pulse of "most juries". You should be a statistician! For your reading enjoyment: Obstructing a law enforcement officer. (1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. (2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes. (3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor. Refusing to comply with a lawfully order elicits a hindrance and a delay. For the record (so perhaps this type of thread can die.....Or I guess heat up depending on the answer). What is the rule on enforcing restraint due to the comission of a Gross misdemeanor? Is this by department or state wide? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:30:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Spanky should be tased for the amount of fail in this thread. Could you make sure to cinch up his sweat pants first. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:30:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Spanky should be tased for the amount of fail in this thread. Could you make sure to cinch up his sweat pants first. Let's call this a requirement and an order instead of a friendly request. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:31:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
For the record (so perhaps this type of thread can die.....Or I guess heat up depending on the answer). What is the rule on enforcing restraint due to the comission of a Gross misdemeanor? Is this by department or state wide? Not sure what you mean by "enforcing restraint". Do you mean how much physical force can you use? You can use whatever amount is necessary to overcome the resistance of the arrestee. You start with talking to 'em. Their own behavior dictates where it goes from there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:31:45 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Non-compliance is obstruction. Funny, most juries would find obstruction has to be an active act. Good luck proving the INTENT of the person who doesn't move. Maybe they don't hear you, understand, etc. Justice allows that there will be some legitimate reasons for non-compliance. Simply remaining where you were before encountered, or in a position you already were is not obstruction, no matter what you've justified in your head. img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_rolleyes.gif[/img] What I think is funny is when people who have no clue what they are talking about start pulling things out of their ass. Very entertaining. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:35:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Poor use of words... Pushing the dust-bunnies aside reminds me that Gross Misdemeanor is arrestable....nevermind me.Quoted: For the record (so perhaps this type of thread can die.....Or I guess heat up depending on the answer). What is the rule on enforcing restraint due to the comission of a Gross misdemeanor? Is this by department or state wide? Not sure what you mean by "enforcing restraint". Do you mean how much physical force can you use? You can use whatever amount is necessary to overcome the resistance of the arrestee. You start with talking to 'em. Their own behavior dictates where it goes from there. SO, the correct question, I guess, is during arrest or detention with the possibility for arrest. What is the escalation of force and the catalyst (if any) that is required to escalate the force. An analogy being that in some cases, it is not permissible to pursue a speeding vehicle depending on the suspected crime (in some departments). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:37:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Non-compliance is obstruction. Funny, most juries would find obstruction has to be an active act. Good luck proving the INTENT of the person who doesn't move. Maybe they don't hear you, understand, etc. Justice allows that there will be some legitimate reasons for non-compliance. Simply remaining where you were before encountered, or in a position you already were is not obstruction, no matter what you've justified in your head. img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/anim_rolleyes.gif[/url] What I think is funny is when people who have no clue what they are talking about start pulling things out of their ass. Very entertaining. I figured you would post your squirrels with light sabers pic by now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:41:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Non-compliance is obstruction. Funny, most juries would find obstruction has to be an active act. Good luck proving the INTENT of the person who doesn't move. Maybe they don't hear you, understand, etc. Justice allows that there will be some legitimate reasons for non-compliance. Simply remaining where you were before encountered, or in a position you already were is not obstruction, no matter what you've justified in your head. ] Wow, if you're going to quote me, you should at least quote something that I actually said. But hey, whatever makes your penis feel bigger is cool. I'm so glad that you have your finger on the pulse of "most juries". You should be a statistician! For your reading enjoyment: Obstructing a law enforcement officer. (1) A person is guilty of obstructing a law enforcement officer if the person willfully hinders, delays, or obstructs any law enforcement officer in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties. (2) "Law enforcement officer" means any general authority, limited authority, or specially commissioned Washington peace officer or federal peace officer as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and other public officers who are responsible for enforcement of fire, building, zoning, and life and safety codes. (3) Obstructing a law enforcement officer is a gross misdemeanor. Refusing to comply with a lawfully order elicits a hindrance and a delay. For the record (so perhaps this type of thread can die.....Or I guess heat up depending on the answer). What is the rule on enforcing restraint due to the comission of a Gross misdemeanor? Is this by department or state wide? And what a lot of people don't understand is that a taser is pretty low on most department's ladder of force. For the most part, you get tased, you fall down and scream like a girl and 5 seconds later it is over with no ill effects. A lot more people get injured (cops and citizens) from cops going hands on then getting tased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:45:15 PM EDT
[#34]
If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:47:28 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
SO, the correct question, I guess, is during arrest or detention with the possibility for arrest. What is the escalation of force and the catalyst (if any) that is required to escalate the force. Varies by department. But as a general rule (taught by the state academy), you use whatever amount of force is necessary to overcome their resistance. So, like I said... their own behavior dictates how much force is used. There is no such thing as a fair fight. Fight to win, not to call it a draw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:47:57 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Spanky should be tased for the amount of fail in this thread. I concur |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:48:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire? Point a taser at me, and I might shoot you. Are you performing a citizens arrest or acting in self defense? Look at me being the cop-alogist today....must be the weather. I'll cop-bash tomorrow when it's nice out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:48:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire? More than likely yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:49:00 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire? 
Many variable to consider, but you'd probably get your troll ass shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:50:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire? More than likely yes But it can't kill ya. It's low on most departments ladder of force. It only makes you fall down and cry like a little girl. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:51:31 PM EDT
[#41]
Oh, and just so my opinion means nothing in this thread....I haven't watched the video. Why you ask? Because it has no bearing on the conversation. What is the conversation? When is it ok for a police officer, sworn to protect the public, to tase someone he is trying to arrest or detain?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:52:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire? http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg Many variable to consider, but you'd probably get your troll ass shot. So you use it routinely to avoid hurting anyone but if my troll ass pointed it at you I would be shot. Interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:53:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Oh, and just so my opinion means nothing in this thread....I haven't watched the video. Why you ask? Because it has no bearing on the conversation. What is the conversation? When is it ok for a police officer, sworn to protect the public, to tase someone he is trying to arrest or detain? If the arrestees behavior dictates it, of course. That's a no-brainer. Same goes for any amount of force. It's all dictated by the arrestee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:55:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire? More than likely yes But it can't kill ya. It's low on most departments ladder of force. It only makes you fall down and cry like a little girl. if you taze a cop and incapacitate them, even momentarily, you could potentialy get control of their sidearm.....just sayin... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:55:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Oh, and just so my opinion means nothing in this thread....I haven't watched the video. Why you ask? Because it has no bearing on the conversation. What is the conversation? When is it ok for a police officer, sworn to protect the public, to tase someone he is trying to arrest or detain? If the arrestees behavior dictates it, of course. That's a no-brainer. Same goes for any amount of force. It's all dictated by the arrestee. Ok, so I've purposefully been using two words, arrest and detain. Same rules apply for both? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:56:14 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HIJACK!if you taze a cop and incapacitate them, even momentarily, you could potentialy get control of their sidearm.....just sayin... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:57:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a citizen pointed a taser at police, would the next step in escalation be for the offcers to open fire? http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/_files_troll_2.jpg Many variable to consider, but you'd probably get your troll ass shot. So you use it routinely to avoid hurting anyone but if my troll ass pointed it at you I would be shot. Interesting. If you point a taser at me, I can only assume you intend to use it. While I'm being tased, I can't move or react. I am armed with a loaded handgun. Hmmmm. Do I want to be laying there being tased by some fucktard who obviously has no regard for law enforcement? Do I want to offer them free access to my handgun? Does the troll gene come from your mother or father's side? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 3:58:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Ok, so I've purposefully been using two words, arrest and detain. Same rules apply for both? Absolutely. It's all about the choices the arrestee or detainee makes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 4:00:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY HIJACK!if you taze a cop and incapacitate them, even momentarily, you could potentialy get control of their sidearm.....just sayin... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile don't make me taze you bro.....:) Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2009 4:00:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: Ok, so I've purposefully been using two words, arrest and detain. Same rules apply for both? Absolutely. It's all about the choices the arrestee or detainee makes. What about a "detainee" in the below, hypothetical situation. "I'm not saying shit without a lawyer, either arrest me for something or let me go" and they begin to walk away. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
