Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
Just because I refuse to blindly agree with you doesn't mean I have no intention of seeing the other side. I've stated numerous times that it is possible that the officer did everything right. It just doesn't sound like he did to me.
And for about the millionth time, there is evidence that the level of force was unnecessary. I've never said "he shouldn't have touched the guy", but it's an old man ferchrissakes. He's half blind. People are, reasonably, questioning why he should have even been driving. Was this level of force necessary? I wonder. You and a few other people apparently don't. "The cop did it, so he must have been right" seems to be the popular opinion.
I can't answer that. Can you? You are the expert. Would you have done exactly the same thing he did, even though you don't know what happened?
Speaking of being an expert, riddle me this: why did he have to hit him twice? That seems like evidence to me that it is possible the level of force was excessive, the cop was incompetent or the equipment was faulty. How dangerous could this old guy have been after being hit by this thing? It's my understanding that they are pretty good at incapacitating people. Am I wrong?
And one more question: is it possible that the officer used an excessive amount of force?
|
Bah, I can't resist.
Please explain why there is evidence that that level of force was unnecessary. Because he was 68? Blind in one eye? Has some brain injury that causes him to not hear things right when he's flustered (damn, i gotta use that one one my wife)? Do you honestly think his wife approached the cop calmly and objectively stated, 'Hi dear. Listen, I know my husband drove off on you but understand he is blind and doesn't think straight when he's flustered'. I highly doubt it.
I don't think people think if the cop did it, it must of been right. Quite the opposite. People have put worth valid arguments why, in this circumstance, the cop appears to have made the correct decision. No one is blinded by this illusion that cops are always right.
I can answer it and have. But why do you chose not to? I presented you with a very real scenario. There is no other factors to consider. Just as, when you are a cop on the street, you don't know who you are dealing with. Answer the question, it still stands.
Regarding the use of 2 cycles. It is well documented that although tasers are completely incapacitating for the duration of their cycle (generally 5 seconds), when the taser turns off, the subject is completely and utterly capable of continuing the fight. There has been several cases of subject removing the probes after the original cycle and continuing the fight. Why there was 2 used in this case, I have no clue. Maybe the subject continued to fight, maybe he refused to comply, I don't know. Hell, maybe the 2nd jolt wasn't necessary and by all means you can question that.
Based on what I have read in the article, NO, excessive force was not used (conceding that I would need more info on the reason for the 2nd cycle, assuming that the subjects wife is a) telling the truth regarding the amount of times he was zapped b) knows when a cycle ends and another starts).