Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/21/2006 1:02:16 PM EDT
Or you may end up tazered to death ... I can't see why this guy was considered a threat and deserved tazering.

-------------------------------

Man Dies After Police Use Taser
Tim Gordon, KOIN News 6


PORTLAND -- Developments are expected Tuesday in a police case involving a taser and a man's death.

While there is no evidence connecting the two at this time, Portland police hope an autopsy will provide more details.

The area of 24th Avenue and Sandy Boulevard was closed to traffic during the evening rush hour Monday while police investigated.

Witnesses say the 46-year-old white male was yelling, speaking gibberish, foaming at the mouth and running into traffic on Sandy Boulevard Monday afternoon. When police arrived, they tried to take him into custody.

"A struggle ensued as he attempted to take him into custody. The officer did use his taser in a drive-stun mode to try to facilitate the custody," Detective Paul Dolbey said.

"He was just floundering. They tried to get him over, but he didn't want to go over. He stayed on his stomach. They wanted him on his backside to see how his mouth was, cause he was foaming so bad at the time," witness Mark McEldery said.

Police say the man lost consciousness and died on the way to the hospital in an ambulance. Investigators from the police bureau and the Multnomah County major crimes team are trying to piece together what happened and determine whether the taser shots contributed to the man's death.

The ACLU of Northern Califonia reports 148 taser-related deaths involving police officers between 1998 and 2005. All of those deaths were in the United States and Canada.

The Arizona-based manufacturer, Taser International, posts this statement on its Web site: "Taser devices provide a safer, more-effective tool for law enforcement officers facing violent situations that pose threats to their safety."

Anyone who witnessed Monday's incident is asked to call Detective Grose at (503) 823-0757.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:25:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:38:10 PM EDT by GackMan]

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
Or you may end up tazered to death ... I can't see why this guy was considered a threat and deserved tazering.



uh... he started fighting with the cop. what do you think will happen? he could have gotten a hickory shampoo instead. taser is 'nicer' that kicking the crap out of someone.


"A struggle ensued as he attempted to take him into custody. The officer did use his taser in a drive-stun mode to try to facilitate the custody," Detective Paul Dolbey said.


that is a code word for "he didn't want to get arrested and started fighting"

I mean, in a perfect world the cops could just let dumb asses get run over. I'm sure the public outcry would have been much worse if the cops just let him play in traffic and get squished (I wouldn't have been part of that outcry).

this news coverage is such bullshit. he was touch tased, no probes. so milliseconds of skin contact. they are focusing on the taser as if it had anything to do with the death. KGW was even worse... they did a whole thing on how taser are evil death machines and then 1/2 way through the report they say "oh, the police didn't fire the probes at the victim in this case. the only touched him with the taser."

I'll bet the autopsy will show that the guy had some other problem going on... just a guess. $20, any takers?

I'm pretty sure the whole foaming at the mouth running in traffic talking gibberish will have more to do with his death that being touch-tased.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:45:48 PM EDT
You know, the funniest thing about this whole "taser controversy", is if the cops don't have tasers, they have a good chance of using their sidearms. The whiners freak out about a device that has maybe a 1% fatality rate, when the alternative is a device that probably has a 50% fatality rate.

Did everyone just hit themselves over the head with an idiot stick?

"My husband is dead! Why did you shoot him?!"
"He was a danger to our officers and bystanders."
"Couldn't you have used a taser?"
"We aren't allowed to use them anymore. Too many people died."
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:59:19 PM EDT
the one that got me was the guy in Cincinnati who was like 400 lbs, enlarged heart, and higher that a kite and fought with the cops.... ended up dying.

"why didnt' they have tasers? why did the cops have to fight so hard and make him have a heart attack?"
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 2:35:46 PM EDT
Vision of NoAim 20 years in the future:


Witnesses say the 46-year-old white male was yelling, speaking gibberish, foaming at the mouth and running into traffic


Oh yeah....
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 2:39:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NoAim:
Vision of NoAim 20 years in the future:


Witnesses say the 46-year-old white male was yelling, speaking gibberish, foaming at the mouth and running into traffic


Oh yeah....




......Naked
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 2:46:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WS4LIF:

Originally Posted By NoAim:
Vision of NoAim 20 years in the future:


Witnesses say the 46-year-old white male was yelling, speaking gibberish, foaming at the mouth and running into traffic


Oh yeah....




......Naked



.......and covered in pudding.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 3:31:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 3:35:05 PM EDT by Bullseye74]
Or you may end up tazered to death ... I can't see why this guy was considered a threat and deserved tazering.

hem


Maybe the cops should carry cookies and candy and try to sweet talk violent people.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 3:49:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 3:49:31 PM EDT by GackMan]
remember when OC was first used? DEATH SPRAY IN A CAN!!!

that shit was killing people with asthma left and right... if you listen to the press.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 4:02:16 PM EDT
Ok, I have let the cop apologists have their say, now itsmy turn:

Cops CHOOSE to do their job. They are paid to take risks. If they don't like it they should quit.

Refusing to bend to a police officers whim is not any reason for them to use lethal, or even "less than lethal" force. A badge is not a kicence to kill, although they seem to think it is.

Why were they taking him into custody? he was obviously sick in one way or another, they should have been more concerned with getting an ambulance on-site, and ensuring that he didn't injure himself than in getting the 'cuffs on him.

The eye-witness account that you so obviously ignored said:



"He was just floundering. They tried to get him over, but he didn't want to go over. He stayed on his stomach. They wanted him on his backside to see how his mouth was, cause he was foaming so bad at the time,"



Sounds to me like he was in severe distress, and probably was trying to puke something up, which would be a bit hard to do lying on your back with a fat Portland cop sitting on your chest. What moron thinks that someone apparently choking shuld be zapped with a tazer in a "drive-stun" mode -- maybe stunning someone choking might just help the choking along? eh??

Imagine a paramedic trying to control someone having a seisure just deciding to shoot him "because I thought he presented a danger to me" -- whats the chances that he would be locked up within the hour?

These neandathals know only one answer to any situation -- to "control it", and if that means brutalizing or killing, then thats what they will do.

This was a totally inappropriate response to the situation.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 5:29:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
Ok, I have let the cop apologists have their say, now itsmy turn:

Cops CHOOSE to do their job. They are paid to take risks. If they don't like it they should quit.



They choose to do their jobs and they should be allowed to use the tools to do it properly.



Refusing to bend to a police officers whim is not any reason for them to use lethal, or even "less than lethal" force. A badge is not a kicence to kill, although they seem to think it is.



How did we go from using a less-than-lethal device to license to kill?



Why were they taking him into custody? he was obviously sick in one way or another, they should have been more concerned with getting an ambulance on-site, and ensuring that he didn't injure himself than in getting the 'cuffs on him.

The eye-witness account that you so obviously ignored said:



"He was just floundering. They tried to get him over, but he didn't want to go over. He stayed on his stomach. They wanted him on his backside to see how his mouth was, cause he was foaming so bad at the time,"





This was a totally inappropriate response to the situation.





It was AN appropriate response. The cops have to take the suspect into custody for his sake, would you rather they sprayed a potentially choking victim with pepper spray? Beat him with a baton? Letting him walk around or away is not an option.

I've been tased and hit with pepper spray and I'll take the taser over pepper or a beating any day.
I doubt the taser was directly related to this man's death. Bottom line, if the police try to take you into custody, you obey their orders and don't resist. If you resist, they will take you into custody the hard way.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 7:07:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
Ok, I have let the cop apologists have their say, now itsmy turn:

Cops CHOOSE to do their job. They are paid to take risks. If they don't like it they should quit.

Refusing to bend to a police officers whim is not any reason for them to use lethal, or even "less than lethal" force. A badge is not a kicence to kill, although they seem to think it is.

Why were they taking him into custody? he was obviously sick in one way or another, they should have been more concerned with getting an ambulance on-site, and ensuring that he didn't injure himself than in getting the 'cuffs on him.

The eye-witness account that you so obviously ignored said:



"He was just floundering. They tried to get him over, but he didn't want to go over. He stayed on his stomach. They wanted him on his backside to see how his mouth was, cause he was foaming so bad at the time,"



Sounds to me like he was in severe distress, and probably was trying to puke something up, which would be a bit hard to do lying on your back with a fat Portland cop sitting on your chest. What moron thinks that someone apparently choking shuld be zapped with a tazer in a "drive-stun" mode -- maybe stunning someone choking might just help the choking along? eh??

Imagine a paramedic trying to control someone having a seisure just deciding to shoot him "because I thought he presented a danger to me" -- whats the chances that he would be locked up within the hour?

These neandathals know only one answer to any situation -- to "control it", and if that means brutalizing or killing, then thats what they will do.

This was a totally inappropriate response to the situation.



dude - up your meds, or talk to your therapist about your authority issues.

I don't think this was the cop tasing someone to make them "bend to their will" this was a person with a medical problem who was a danger to themselves and others and was being un cooperative and fighting with the police when they tried to help him. As unpleasant as it is, just letting him go wasn't an option.

Do we agree? the guy needed help?

You know medical won't touch someone like that until they are restrained and it is safe for them to come in? So how do they get him into the non-existent ambulance that won't come?

So what is the alternative? let the guy die or restrain him so medical can approach him? I'm waiting to hear your expert risk assessment


As for the eye-witness - which is it? a cop was siting on him? or trying to get him on his stomach to keep him from choking? you can't have it both ways to fit into your prejudiced opinion.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 7:25:44 PM EDT
Let me guess, Gackman is LE or former.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 7:58:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 7:59:48 PM EDT by GackMan]

Originally Posted By munkalido:
Let me guess, Gackman is LE or former.



I have some exposure, but it is limited.

Phil's reaction just seems like something a knee-jerk, hand wringing, liberal would say... or he has had some bad experiences and needs to take it out on someone.

not sure which.

Either way, I couldn't let it go w/ out stirring up some shit
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:20:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 9:21:29 PM EDT by 45glockman]
NEWSFLASH: 100% of Taser Victim's Die... Eventually. (Some sooner than later and usually not because they were tasered.)


Originally Posted By PhilipPeake:
I can't see why this guy was considered a threat and deserved tazering.



WTF?



Sorry, but I can't stomach such libtard BS.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 9:45:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GackMan:
taser is 'nicer' that kicking the crap out of someone.





I don't care where you're from, that's funny.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 10:00:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 1:06:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 1:14:02 AM EDT by kythri]
Here's the problem with Tasers.

A cop armed with a Taser is now in a "shoot first, ask questions later" mode.

People tout the low fatality rate with Tasers, but fail to realize that a very SMALL minority of departments are armed with Tasers. PPB is one of the few in Oregon - Oregon State Police haven't even approved them for use, yet.

Without a Taser, an armed officer, while he may have to resort to his sidearm, is going to go through the whole mental process of progression of force.

Without a Taser, this guy probably would have been wrestled to the ground, and alive in a hospital.

With a Taser, the cops shot first. Tasers are "non-lethal", or so the saying goes.

Don't think for a minute that the training for issuing a Taser is anything close to the training for issuing a firearm.

The fact remains, the majority of deaths from shootings are ruled "good shoots", i.e. the officer had a valid reason to fear for their life.

The force progression with a Taser should be the same as a firearm - if you wouldn't shoot the suspect dead, you shouldn't Taser him.

ETA: I'm most definitely anti-criminal. Don't think anything but.

Tasers are intended to be "pro-criminal" - i.e. removing deadly force from the equation. Tasers are a liberal bullshit idea, in the first place.

This is yet more of the pussification of our nation - the threat of use of force is supposed to be a deterrent. Just fucking WATCH violent crime increase in Portland now that Tasers are general issue. The media plays up Tasers as safe - crooks will see this, think "Oh, wow, ok, all I'll get is zapped - maybe."

If they're breaking the law, and threatening the life of the officer or others, shoot them in the fucking head. Don't shoot to stop, shoot to kill.

Eliminate them.

Further ETA: For what it's worth, the PPB has the highest rate of validated (read: investigated and found valid) complaints for civil rights violations in the state.

One could argue that it's due to the population of the city and the size of the force, but all that means is that more cops in Portland violate your civil rights.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 8:16:33 AM EDT
One could argue that it's due to the population of the city and the size of the force, but all that means is that more cops in Portland violate your civil rights.

This is yet more of the pussification of our nation - the threat of use of force is supposed to be a deterrent. Just fucking WATCH violent crime increase in Portland now that Tasers are general issue. The media plays up Tasers as safe - crooks will see this, think "Oh, wow, ok, all I'll get is zapped - maybe."

_______________________________________________________________________

I would bet that his cause of death is something not related to the Tazer. If they're so dangerous, why do so many cops get shocked during training for Tazer cert. The fact is that they're another tool to use. I will be carrying one soon for work and can see its use, I have had several incidents where it may have been helpful. How is EMS going to help a sick person if they can't subdue them, as they are not trained in doing that. Better to let him run around on Sandy blvd and get nailed by a car. They bitch if you take action and bitch if you don't. So many MMQB's.


Link Posted: 3/22/2006 8:33:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kythri:
The force progression with a Taser should be the same as a firearm - if you wouldn't shoot the suspect dead, you shouldn't Taser him.



whoa buddy! slow down on that one.

Tasers are on the same level as pepper spray; if someone needs to be shot, they need to be shot with a gun, not a taser. that is a dangerous precedent to say tasers should be used in lieu if deadly force.

Tasers are LOWER than serious physical control. So a cop can use physical control (grabbing, pulling, pushing) but if the cop can punch, twist, hit, kick, etc. then they might as well zap or spray the guy and not risk getting in a knock down drag out fight. suspect and cop end up getting hurt worse. It is about protecting the bad guy as much as it is about protecting the cops.

Statistically, the risk of death is the same for the bad guy if they get beat up or sprayed, or tased... bottom line, if they already have medical problems they're screwed.

I'm not sure I trust Amnesty International's numbers but suppose the 144 deaths in 5 years is correct and not exagerated or inflated... out of 9,000+ deployments of the taser (based on taser.com's published number from Nov 05 - I would suspect there are some under-reported deployments not in that total)? So that works out to a .016% death rate? Based on that, I think asprin is more deadly than the taser.



Link Posted: 3/22/2006 8:51:37 AM EDT
How many of Portland's finest does it take to subdue a 46-year-old white male who was yelling, speaking gibberish, foaming at the mouth?

From the story, it says one officer tazered the individual, but also that "they" were trying to get him onto his back to see what was going on with his mouth? How many were "they" that they could not control one individual?

Then again, it really doesn't say how big the guy was...but "they" should be able to overcome "one",without the use of the tazer. Or were they just afraid of the foaming mouth?

Old school training teaches strength in numbers. The tazer would have been appropriate if the situation was out of control, or less than lethal force was justified. Just my .02
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:03:02 AM EDT

Taser demo time?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:06:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TangoFoxtrot:
Taser demo time?



Thanks for volunteering TF!
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:18:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NoAim:

Originally Posted By TangoFoxtrot:
Taser demo time?



Thanks for volunteering TF!



I'll go first on the lowest setting, but must have more volunteers for medium and high.

Just don't shoot me in the back or while I'm eating choking.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:40:08 AM EDT
Wow is all I can say. This thread does a great job of emphasizing the differences between rural Oregon and populous Oregon.

In rural Oregon the ‘Do Right Boys’ may not always be high on your list, but when stopped or approached by LE you act reasonable, they act reasonable and the situation gets resolved. You act like an ass, they treat you a hell of a lot better than I would. In rural OR a very substantial percentage of the citizens of the county are armed, LE knows it, is generally in favor of it, doesn't fear it, and often stands around BS'ng with you about it. In short, LE are your neighbor, in your congregation, men and women that you speak to at little league games, they are not the enemy.

Populous Oregon - PDX / Eugene in particular - where you can not go 5 minutes without having to endure an anti Bush / anti wood products industry / anti government diatribe from some asshat transplant from LA - it is viewed as acceptable behavior to not recognize that LE has a job to do - one you and I didn't want. One that is required in our society. A job that is not an infringement on anyone's civil liberties; one that if you co-operate, act reasonable, and be truthful; will help you, LE, and your community. All to often loud mouth liberals that have never had anything crappy happen to them (read be a victim) snivel about the treatment of some shitbag that CHOSE to be a shitbag. The liberal press jumps on it, some 'community leader' type looking to make a name for themselves (and glean $$ from those they portend to represent) cries foul and then an ivory tower ACLU type (often from out of state) steps in to emphasize the point. Welcome to the decay of American society.

Mr. Peake - I am not LE, have always viewed LE with one jaundiced eye but have to say that I would encourage that you rethink your position or at least be open minded at this stage. If LE was truly in the wrong - I would be the first to stand with you. However I would encourage that everyone ask themselves "What would a reasonable person do when charged with the duty of restoring public order and confronting a man flipping out in the middle of a public street? Bear in mind, LEO's / your's / mine - first obligation is to go home each night.

Here is a graphic vid of a LEO that was confronted with a similar situation - he chose to give the benny of the doubt to the BG when the BG flipped out in the middle of the street, he even choose to give him the benny of the doubt when he went back to his truck against the LEOs command, he even chose to give him the benny of the doubt when he seated a mag in the rifle. The BG got the benny of the doubt all the way up until he shot and killed the officer. How many wanna bet some loud mouth liberal that has never been a victim, never had a family member be a victim, will never meet with the slain officer's family, will never be there to explain to the slain officer's kids why the bad man shot daddy - champion the argument at trail that the BG deserves the benny of the doubt, or at sentencing the BG deserves the benny of the doubt; or at an appeal / parole hearing?

www.filecabi.net/u.php?file=1125457222.wmv

Good luck
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:04:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TangoFoxtrot:

Originally Posted By NoAim:

Originally Posted By TangoFoxtrot:
Taser demo time?



Thanks for volunteering TF!



I'll go first on the lowest setting, but must have more volunteers for medium and high.

Just don't shoot me in the back and neck or while I'm eating choking.



Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:27:43 AM EDT
I agree with face n the crowd, we've got WAY too many libtards in this state. We need to pack them all up and ship them down to Kommyfornia where they belong. Go rot with the rest of the LA trash. hair.gif

It's getting to the point that I'm almost embarrassed to say that I'm an american. Being an American used to mean something, I LOVE what america was founded on and what it was for so long, but our country is rotting from the inside out. The liberal retards are bringing this country to its knees.he

This makes me sick.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:34:42 AM EDT
Comparing an unarmed, physically sick and possibly mentally ill man, face down on the city sidewalk, is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different from a “Vietnam Combat Veteran” in a pickup truck who is obviously out of his mind and very angry about being pulled over on a rural road.

A rule I learned in Texas is, “Never let them go back to their car.” There is always a gun there. Always.

If you want to add oranges to the apple mix, go investigate the TCGC member who recently got pulled over after leaving the range for a burned out license plate light, and ended up sprawled eagle over the hood of her car.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 11:56:48 AM EDT
I'm in the PDX area, and in no way am I any more or less liberal than the local red neck from the sticks. I've worn the badge for Uncle Sam and the civvy world, and have been on both sides of the debate in the real world. It's not an easy decision to make, when you have to make it, and hopefully your training and gut instincts tell you which way to go. In the end, hopefully you made the right choice and all turns out for the best for all parties involved. But the last thing you want is for anyone to get hurt, whether that be the innocents around the scene, you or your fellow officers, or the BG. I don't think we'll ever know all of what was involved in this case from either side. It's unfortunate that this individual died, no matter what the cause was. Could it have been prevented? Who knows. Was it the right choice to tazer him? That was the choice the LEO made and he/she will live with. Could he have been controlled without it? Who knows. For the good 'ol boys, he is just one less dirt bag on the street. Maybe.

Now, put the shoe on the other foot. Your next of kin, be it wife/hubby/bro/sis/son/daughter has had a bad day, broke up with significant other, got fired, etc. They stop off and have one too many, or just lost it and wanted to vent. To the unknowing, they are acting irrational, ranting, raving, maybe even frothing. Knowing the outcome of this individual, what would you feel comfortable with, what should the LEO do? Would you be willing to chance the tazer on them? Just curious.

Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:36:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 12:37:49 PM EDT by Face_N_The_Crowd]

Originally Posted By TangoFoxtrot:
Comparing an unarmed, physically sick and possibly mentally ill man, face down on the city sidewalk, is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different from a “Vietnam Combat Veteran” in a pickup truck who is obviously out of his mind and very angry about being pulled over on a rural road.

A rule I learned in Texas is, “Never let them go back to their car.” There is always a gun there. Always.

If you want to add oranges to the apple mix, go investigate the TCGC member who recently got pulled over after leaving the range for a burned out license plate light, and ended up sprawled eagle over the hood of her car.



TFT - as you know - it is a continuum and LE are people too……we weren’t there in either case….there are two sides to every story…I am willing to give beeny of the doubt to LE that they are by and large reasonable persons - in that they have been screened prior to being hired and are continuously monitored by both the department and the community for abuse. The central question is at what point would a reasonable person be able to determine that the individual that they are dealing with does not pose a threat to the public at large, LE or themselves? Think about that. If a person is not calm or is not behaving rationally – how would a reasonable person make that call? Would they speak to them? If the person didn’t calm down, would they issue a command? If the person failed to comply would the use force to compel that person? Priority one is safety for all parties involved. If erratic and non responsive person were unconscious – wouldn’t that make both the general public and LE safer? Would it prevent erratic and non responsive person to cause harm to themselves? The real issue is how safety is achieved - Verbal discussion, show / threat of force, electronic persuasion, physical persuasion, or the use of deadly force. When individuals no longer feel it is necessary to yield to LE and answer questions in a calm manner – the continuum steps up. When a community condones such behavior we have break down – nationally this is where we are.

As for the TCGC member – again, I have to believe that the LEO was reasonable initially and that some form of provocation was offered. If not, and the member from TCGC is so inclined they should pursue the matter through both administrative and legal channels.

I have been pulled over in a variety of situations and circumstances in all parts of the state (I lived in PDX for 10 yrs) have never had any issues with LE – and I can assure you that for a good many years I not only looked sketchy – I was sketchy.

Again, I am not a giant fan of blue. However, they have a job – a necessary job in our society; and the vast majority does a very good job at it.

Waiting for more facts before passing judgment

Good luck
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 12:55:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 2:17:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Face_N_The_Crowd:
Wow is all I can say. This thread does a great job of emphasizing the differences between rural Oregon and populous Oregon.

*SNIP*

Good luck



Big difference.

HUGE difference.

The video you're using is an example of a poorly trained officer who failed at his duties, and is dead because of it.

I'm sad that he's dead, and I feel bad for his family, but he violated one of the basic tenants of law enforcement - he failed to control the situation. The officer should have fired at the man the second he started withdrawing from the vehicle, if not sooner.

This isn't an example of an unarmed man in severe distress.

Alrighty then. One useless/pointless example down.

Next?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 2:19:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 2:34:41 PM EDT by kythri]

Originally Posted By robruger1:
I agree with face n the crowd, we've got WAY too many libtards in this state. We need to pack them all up and ship them down to Kommyfornia where they belong. Go rot with the rest of the LA trash.

It's getting to the point that I'm almost embarrassed to say that I'm an american. Being an American used to mean something, I LOVE what america was founded on and what it was for so long, but our country is rotting from the inside out. The liberal retards are bringing this country to its knees.

It's easy to point the finger of blame when your stupid, niave, unexperienced and uninvolved. But lets see what you do when put in this position.

This makes me sick.



So, we're liberal, because we believe in police actually performing their duties, rather than electrocuting everyone they come across that doesn't immediately comply.

Get real.

ETA: Let me make things more clear, since certain people seem to be twisting this - my problem with tasers - into "you're a pro-criminal anti-cop liberal!"

Kendra James, the crackhead prostitute that tried to kill a PPB officer by dragging him down the road in her vehicle. Dead. Shot by the officer - NOT TASERED. Good shoot? Hell yes, it was a good shoot. I'm only sorry that she already had the chance (successfully) to procreate.

James Jahar Akbar Perez, the alleged drug dealer who refused to comply with PPB officer demands. He was Tasered, but there was another officer standing by ready to shoot - which he did, when Perez shrugged off the Taser. Good Tasering, Good shoot.

The Taser should be used as an alternative to shooting, but only when there's another officer with his firearm out, ready to shoot if the Taser is ineffective.

Period.

The Taser should not be used as a progression of force step, period.

Once again, I'll repeat it:

The Taser should be used as an alternative to shooting, but only when there's another officer with his firearm out, ready to shoot if the Taser is ineffective. Instead, it's used as an erroneously "non-lethal" method to "shoot first, ask questions later."

Police with a Taser at the ready are not going through the same mental process as police with a firearm at the ready. That's a serious error.

If an officer is willing to Taser a person, he/she should be willing to end the person's life.

I'm most definitely pro-cop. I'm anti-Taser.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 4:19:06 PM EDT
Just out us curiosity, kythri - what is your reasoning for using taser only as a substitute for lethal force? I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from.

I think it belongs where it is, above open hand but below closed fist. In my opinion, it is still better than the cops hitting a people with a stick.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:00:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GackMan:
Just out us curiosity, kythri - what is your reasoning for using taser only as a substitute for lethal force? I'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from.



I don't believe that they're safe, at all. The electrical current introduces arrhythmia. This is a very bad dangerous thing.

I've read a number of the reports and studies on the effects of the Taser, and none have been on any wide scale, with any kind of significant monitoring done before, during, and after the juicing.

I think the things have an incredible potential for harm - much more so than physical restraint.

That potential, coupled with the mentality of "it's non-lethal, so it's not a big deal, keep juicing the guy" is a dangerous combination.


I think it belongs where it is, above open hand but below closed fist. In my opinion, it is still better than the cops hitting a people with a stick.


At the end of the day, even if Tasers are 100% safe, I think that if the criminal is doing something worthy of being juiced, they should either get their ass beat, or get shot.

I'm tired of criminal-friendly punishments. Physical (including lethal) force, incarceration and the death penalty are all supposed to be deterrents to crime. They're not, because we've prettied them up. Instead of the stick or the gun, we zap them. Instead of hard labor, or being locked in your cell all day, we afford them all the comforts of home, including internet access, LCD tv's and DVD's in their cell. Instead of executing murderers, we allow them to live in relative comfort on death row for 20+ years.

So-called "deterrents" to crime don't do anything.

Every single time we have someone decide that it's time to get "tough on crime", we get stupid legislation that put more people in jail. That's all well and good, but the jails are overcrowded.

Why?

Because punishment isn't as bad as it used to be, so career criminals don't mind as much. Oh, darn, Eddie the Shiv got busted again, another year in the slam means no rent paid, no bills paid, get to hang out with your homies, etc.

I'm sure he'd rather have successfully robbed whoever he was robbing, to get his next fix, but, you know, jail isn't a bad alternative these days.

It's a damned joke.

What happened to hard-labor? Back when jail was so bad, criminals were few and far between, and those incarcerated tried hard to escape.

Today, in Salem, OR, we have the Mill Creek Correctional Facility, with it's inmate-ran farm, with virtually no security. The inmates work in a yard with no fence. Criminals have every opportunity to simply walk away, or arrange a ride. Do they attempt to leave? Virtually never.

Why?

Because CRIME DOES PAY. It pays the bills - rent, water, sewer, garbage, food, clothing, you name it. The inmates today ACTUALLY EARN MONEY, PAID FOR BY OUR TAXES while they're incarcerated.

If you want to talk about liberal bullshit, here it is right here.

If a criminal resists a legitimate arrest, beat them into submission. If an offer feels there is a legitimate threat to his life (or the life of others nearby), empty the goddamned clip. If a criminal is sentenced to incarceration, make that incarceration be the worst time of their life. Grueling physical work. No amenities such as TV, Internet, DVD's. Let them read a book. Hell, let them further their education. But don't coddle them. Don't put them in a Holiday Inn with a few bars.

And goddammit, shoot them. Don't Taser them.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:30:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 6:34:47 PM EDT by GackMan]

Originally Posted By kythri:
I don't believe that they're safe, at all. The electrical current introduces arrhythmia. This is a very bad dangerous thing.



really? Everything I've read is the taster is too low power and too low cycle to have any effect on heart rate.

the best research done was on pigs. Monitored pre - during - after being hit with a taster and none of the data shows any sign on ventricular fibrulation... but the doctor was more or less paid to do the study by Taser... so I'm not sure what to think. was he influenced? or merely commissioned for to do the study.


Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:48:48 PM EDT
Alright...

My LE experience is limited to that of Military Police, but we're still trained and instructed on Use of Force guidelines none the less. Just like civilian LEO, if I shoot someone in the wrong, I go to federal pound me in the ass prison as well as a PPB cop.



The United States Air Force Use of Force Model (refer to AFI 31-207 Arming and Use of Force by Air Force Personnel)

If it were color, it'd go from the bottom to the top with Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange, and finally, Red. In a perfect world, you'd approach every situation at the bottom level, with a "Professional" state. Subject is compliant with your commands, and you're very polite. You talk to the person, and they comply. "Sir, will you please step out of your car for a moment?".

Next level, they start to get lippy, and say "no" frequently. This is where you use physical apprehension and restraint techniques, or PART. Ikkyo grips, arm bars, pressure points, etc to get them to comply.

The threshold level, is where the subject is actively resisting your commands. The subject could possibly be hanging onto a pole of some sort, etc. You are authorized to use Compliance Techniques in order to detain the person. These include Oleoresin Capsicum spray, Asp expandable batons, and TASERS.

If I were in the situation that this officer was in, I would have done the exact same thing. My safety, and the safety of everyone else is my first priority. Not his. If I would have tased him, I would have been in the right, too. This Use of Force model is drilled into our heads just for the unfortunate chance of possibly having to go to court, so if we do, we rattle off that "The subject was actively resisting my commands, my risk perception was at the threshold, and I responded with compliance techniques." Judge would say "Ok thanks" and dismiss it.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 6:55:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GackMan:

Originally Posted By kythri:
I don't believe that they're safe, at all. The electrical current introduces arrhythmia. This is a very bad dangerous thing.



really? Everything I've read is the taster is too low power and too low cycle to have any effect on heart rate.

the best research done was on pigs. Monitored pre - during - after being hit with a taster and none of the data shows any sign on ventricular fibrulation... but the doctor was more or less paid to do the study by Taser... so I'm not sure what to think. was he influenced? or merely commissioned for to do the study.





Arrhythmia is different than ventricular fibrillation. A 9-volt battery on the tongue will induce arrhythmia, albeit EXTREMELY mild.

Am I insinuating that 9-volt batteries are "dangerous"? Not at all.

I'm simply saying that I'm not comfortable at all with devices that pump electrical current through my body, and cause my heart to beat irregularly.

Tons of people have heart defects that are mild, but won't ever harm them - unless other mitigating factors are present.

When I served on the fire department, we had a case of a guy that sufferered a major heart attack from a relatively mild shock incurred while he was working on an electrical outlet in his house.

The heart attack was enough to have doctors run lots of tests that they wouldn't have otherwise. Diagnosis - they found the minor problem with the guy's heart.

Would a Taser have caused the same thing?

I don't know - I'm not a scientist.

What I do know is that electrocuting people is not a good thing. The more departments that get outfitted with Tasers = the more people getting juiced. It's a scary proposition.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:00:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A1C_Titan:

*SNIP*

If I were in the situation that this officer was in, I would have done the exact same thing. My safety, and the safety of everyone else is my first priority. Not his. If I would have tased him, I would have been in the right, too. This Use of Force model is drilled into our heads just for the unfortunate chance of possibly having to go to court, so if we do, we rattle off that "The subject was actively resisting my commands, my risk perception was at the threshold, and I responded with compliance techniques." Judge would say "Ok thanks" and dismiss it.



While I have a problem with a few members of the PPB, I'm not arguing that the cop followed the wrong procedure.

He probably did everything as he was trained to do.

I'm arguing that the procedure is flawed, and that Tasers shouldn't be used.

They shouldn't be part of the progression of force, unless their use is limited to an equal level with a firearm or other lethal force - and personally, if the situation warrants lethal force, I'd prefer it to be used.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:01:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By GackMan:

Originally Posted By kythri:
I don't believe that they're safe, at all. The electrical current introduces arrhythmia. This is a very bad dangerous thing.



really? Everything I've read is the taster is too low power and too low cycle to have any effect on heart rate.

the best research done was on pigs. Monitored pre - during - after being hit with a taster and none of the data shows any sign on ventricular fibrulation... but the doctor was more or less paid to do the study by Taser... so I'm not sure what to think. was he influenced? or merely commissioned for to do the study.





Arrhythmia is different than ventricular fibrillation. A 9-volt battery on the tongue will induce arrhythmia, albeit EXTREMELY mild.

Am I insinuating that 9-volt batteries are "dangerous"? Not at all.

I'm simply saying that I'm not comfortable at all with devices that pump electrical current through my body, and cause my heart to beat irregularly.

Tons of people have heart defects that are mild, but won't ever harm them - unless other mitigating factors are present.

When I served on the fire department, we had a case of a guy that sufferered a major heart attack from a relatively mild shock incurred while he was working on an electrical outlet in his house.

The heart attack was enough to have doctors run lots of tests that they wouldn't have otherwise. Diagnosis - they found the minor problem with the guy's heart.

Would a Taser have caused the same thing?

I don't know - I'm not a scientist.

What I do know is that electrocuting people is not a good thing. The more departments that get outfitted with Tasers = the more people getting juiced. It's a scary proposition.



Ok, so by that same token, job interviews should be illegal. It's very common that during an interview, blood pressue rises to 320/200, and heart rate dramatically increases. Theoretically, there's a higher chance of dying because of a job interview, than there is a taser.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:03:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By A1C_Titan:

*SNIP*

If I were in the situation that this officer was in, I would have done the exact same thing. My safety, and the safety of everyone else is my first priority. Not his. If I would have tased him, I would have been in the right, too. This Use of Force model is drilled into our heads just for the unfortunate chance of possibly having to go to court, so if we do, we rattle off that "The subject was actively resisting my commands, my risk perception was at the threshold, and I responded with compliance techniques." Judge would say "Ok thanks" and dismiss it.



While I have a problem with a few members of the PPB, I'm not arguing that the cop followed the wrong procedure.

He probably did everything as he was trained to do.

I'm arguing that the procedure is flawed, and that Tasers shouldn't be used.

They shouldn't be part of the progression of force, unless their use is limited to an equal level with a firearm or other lethal force - and personally, if the situation warrants lethal force, I'd prefer it to be used.



And as I said, I certainly hope to go home after the shift is over and see the proverbial wife and kids. If there's a device that can safely keep me a good distance away from the subject to subdue him or her, then by all means--let me have it. I'd rather that, than to have the subject take my baton or pepper spray away from me and use it on me, take my gun, kill me and drive off.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:28:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A1C_Titan:
Ok, so by that same token, job interviews should be illegal. It's very common that during an interview, blood pressue rises to 320/200, and heart rate dramatically increases. Theoretically, there's a higher chance of dying because of a job interview, than there is a taser.



Nice straw-man.

Increased heart rate is not arrhythmia.

And for what it's worth, people choose to go to a job interview. Few people choose to be electrocuted.

Major difference.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:32:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By A1C_Titan:
And as I said, I certainly hope to go home after the shift is over and see the proverbial wife and kids. If there's a device that can safely keep me a good distance away from the subject to subdue him or her, then by all means--let me have it. I'd rather that, than to have the subject take my baton or pepper spray away from me and use it on me, take my gun, kill me and drive off.



You have that device.

It's called a sidearm.

Even with a Taser, you'd still have to approach the suspect, and place cuffs on him/her, or otherwise physically restrain them.

I've seen videos, and read a number of reports of people that had been juiced, and after the current was shut off, they were ready and rarin' to go at it again.

I've seen a video of a Tasered suspect that got zapped, twitched for a second, and then ripped the trodes out and got busy.

At worst, a Taser is a dangerous tool that should be treated with the same expectation of lethality.

At best, it's a tool that is effective only part of the time - unfortunately, most of the cases I've seen where Tasers had a limited effectiveness were the cases where the effectiveness was most needed.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:33:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 7:34:12 PM EDT by A1C_Titan]

Originally Posted By kythri:

Originally Posted By A1C_Titan:
Ok, so by that same token, job interviews should be illegal. It's very common that during an interview, blood pressue rises to 320/200, and heart rate dramatically increases. Theoretically, there's a higher chance of dying because of a job interview, than there is a taser.



Nice straw-man.

Increased heart rate is not arrhythmia.

And for what it's worth, people choose to go to a job interview. Few people choose to be electrocuted.

Major difference.



Some people also choose to comply with what a law enforcement officer instructs them to do.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 7:46:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 7:47:35 PM EDT by munkalido]

Originally Posted By A1C_Titan:

Some people also choose to comply with what a law enforcement officer instructs them to do.



Even those running the streets, foaming at the mouth? Got a link to the stats?
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:25:44 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/22/2006 9:41:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/22/2006 9:46:53 PM EDT by Face_N_The_Crowd]
Kythri - you brought up Straw Man arguments - interesting..... how does your resoponse to my observation of the differences in mindset between rural and populous OR not constitute a Straw Man? The link was an illustration of another situation wherein there was an unknown - it went bad. What would you have preferred? At the point the guy flips in the middle of the street: A. Issue commands (which was done and he did not heed) B. Tase him C. Club him like a baby seal D. Shot him - can you see where if a taser had been used - the LEO would be alive and the BG would be alive as well? Are you willing to admit that that would have been a better outcome? LE alive, LE family still has dad, Shitbag alive, Shitbag's family doesn't have to go visit Dad in the can - who isn't in with the right car while in the gladiator pit so he is getting punked daily, gets AIDS and dies.... neat thing for kids of Shitbag to watch over time... bet they turn out nicely - become highly functional and productive members of society too.

You also mention that tasers are dangerous and therefore instead of tasing - these people should be restrained. How large of a PD does the average muncipality need to maintain in order to have that kind of rapid response time to put 4 or 5 large MEN on site to restrain someone? You do understand a single large man can not restrain ONE average size highly motivated / high adult man - correct? Also under your proposal - women could no longer be hired. Restrain - wow, spoken like someone who has never been witness to / involved in a large freaky man knock the shit out of more than one person at a time..... Well trained fighters blow knees / shoulders and elbows in one touch FYI.

Tasers statistically don't cause the injuries that you cite. Sleeper holds (restraint) certainly can and do.


Again - not a blind friend of blue but I think for the sake of the discussion the conversation needs to be kept under the bell curve.

Lastly we weren't there - maybe you are on the mayor's advisor committee regarding community relations / police over sight - but you state things as fact when they are not -

So, we're liberal, because we believe in police actually performing their duties, rather than electrocuting everyone they come across that doesn't immediately comply.

Get real.


Link Posted: 3/22/2006 10:17:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Face_N_The_Crowd:
Kythri - you brought up Straw Man arguments - interesting..... how does your resoponse to my observation of the differences in mindset between rural and populous OR not constitute a Straw Man?



Your video was an illustration of poor training, or a failure to exercise skills learned in the training.

You used it to compare the two incidents - a sick and not in control man who needed assistance, and a lunatic murderer.


The link was an illustration of another situation wherein there was an unknown - it went bad. What would you have preferred? At the point the guy flips in the middle of the street: A. Issue commands (which was done and he did not heed) B. Tase him C. Club him like a baby seal D. Shot him


D.


- Can you see where if a taser had been used - the LEO would be alive and the BG would be alive as well? Are you willing to admit that that would have been a better outcome? LE alive, LE family still has dad, Shitbag alive, Shitbag's family doesn't have to go visit Dad in the can - who isn't in with the right car while in the gladiator pit so he is getting punked daily, gets AIDS and dies.... neat thing for kids of Shitbag to watch over time... bet they turn out nicely - become highly functional and productive members of society too.


No, the better outcome would have been if the officer had shot his murderer, and ended the situation. I don't know what was going through the officer's head at that moment (and nobody ever will), but the fact remains, he screwed up, to his own detriment.


You also mention that tasers are dangerous and therefore instead of tasing - these people should be restrained. How large of a PD does the average muncipality need to maintain in order to have that kind of rapid response time to put 4 or 5 large MEN on site to restrain someone?


If the suspect is a threat to others, and is putting their lives in danger, it's time to shoot them.

If they are a threat only to themselves, and a single officer can't restrain, call in backup.


You do understand a single large man can not restrain ONE average size highly motivated / high adult man - correct?


Yes, I understand.


Also under your proposal - women could no longer be hired.


And they shouldn't be, unless they can pass the same physical requirements that are expected of the male applicants - unfortunately, most departments (and our military) have relaxed physical requirements for female applicants. This is a whole seperate topic that we can discuss later.


Restrain - wow, spoken like someone who has never been witness to / involved in a large freaky man knock the shit out of more than one person at a time..... Well trained fighters blow knees / shoulders and elbows in one touch FYI.


Wow, spoken like someone who knows nothing about me, nor knows anything about what they're talking about.

I've been involved, and I've been involved in restraining said people.

I'm not saying that one person can always be restrained by one officer. I'm saying that I disagree with the use of Tasers, and the mentality that their use fosters.


Tasers statistically don't cause the injuries that you cite. Sleeper holds (restraint) certainly can and do.


I didn't cite injuries. I said Tasers cause arrhythmia, and potentially have unknown other negative effects.


Again - not a blind friend of blue but I think for the sake of the discussion the conversation needs to be kept under the bell curve.

Lastly we weren't there - maybe you are on the mayor's advisor committee regarding community relations / police over sight - but you state things as fact when they are not -

So, we're liberal, because we believe in police actually performing their duties, rather than electrocuting everyone they come across that doesn't immediately comply.

Get real.





Re-read robruger1's post, and you'll see what that sentence was responding to.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 7:43:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cboyer:
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.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 8:53:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By munkalido:

Originally Posted By Cboyer:
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.



zing!
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 10:56:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By munkalido:

Originally Posted By Cboyer:
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...
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top