Another "Taser-wielding RCMP officer"

Originally Posted by JayP

"Well, I was so shocked I couldn't believe it. He tried to fight him off, right? But he Tasered him anyways — twice."

Can anyone understand this sentence? If the cop is trying to fight off the old guy then this thread is over. He's lucky he just got tasered if that's the case. If the guy got charged with assault then it's pretty clear that he had some sort of physical altercation with the cop.

Ya I don't get that sentence. How one can attempt to 'fight off' a cop after fleeing and NOT expect to get some sort of use of force option used on them is beyond me. Although he admittedly suffers from a neurological disorder. Where I am from, stupidity isn't really a medical disorder.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Ya I don't get that sentence. How one can attempt to 'fight off' a cop after fleeing and NOT expect to get some sort of use of force option used on them is beyond me. Although he admittedly suffers from a neurological disorder. Where I am from, stupidity isn't really a medical disorder.

The wife says his neurological disorder affected his ability to understand words when he was flustered...which is no excuse for going after an RCMP officer.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by JayP

"Well, I was so shocked I couldn't believe it. He tried to fight him off, right? But he Tasered him anyways — twice."

Can anyone understand this sentence? If the cop is trying to fight off the old guy then this thread is over. He's lucky he just got tasered if that's the case. If the guy got charged with assault then it's pretty clear that he had some sort of physical altercation with the cop.

exactly.

As for the woman's quote about the officer being excited to use his new toy; I think it's pretty evident how that would work.

The man had already ran from the cop, then got out of his car to confront the the officer. The officer obviously would have a weapon out, and in a situation like that where adrenaline is flowing the police officer would look excited. Not neccessarily geefully excited to use a weapon, but excited as in a fight or flight response. It is a physiological reaction to the kind of situation that the officer was in.
Totally justified use of force in my opinion.

What would have happened if this man had acted this way before police officers were carrying tasers? That's a serious question.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by JayP

Pretty much.

If a cop pulls someone over and you get out of your vehicle they're going to have a weapon pointed at you. If you advance quickly on the cop they don't have much other choice but to take you down. And that's without evading resisting arrest a minute earlier.

68 year olds can operate handguns (or any other concealed weapon) as well as anyone else - they're not above the law.

It isn't that we're fortunate things don't work that way here; it's just soooo F-ed up that that's the situation down there. Lucky he didn't get shot? If that's all it takes to get shot, then police shouldn't have guns.

And no, 68 year olds aren't above the law, but leaving a vehicle isn't against the law.

[CMPunk]

I'll take my chances getting tasered, rather then take my chances getting shot.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Its easy for people to say that he wasn't a threat now, after all the dust has cleared. Afterall, hindsight is 20/20. But try putting yourself in the cop's perspective at that moment. Some guy drives away, stops a block later, gets out of the car and approaches you. What if that guy had a concealed weapon, like a handgun. You really don't know what nutjob you've just pulled over. Add to the fact that an RCMP just lost his life a couple of days ago, and you're gonna get a cop that would rather be safe than sorry. I don't know about you, but if I were in the cop's position, I'd do the exact same thing. I'll take public criticism and a review over potentially having my family plan for my funeral, thank you very much.

Okay, for the third time at least -- the article doesn't say that he got out of the car and approached the officer.

If he got out of the car and, as you many of you have somehow seem to have deduced out of thin air, he was approaching this cop in a menacing fashion then hell, I wouldn't blame the cop for shooting the guy.

The way the article reads, the cop got out of his car, walked over and zapped him a couple times. Now I know I know, we don't know everything from this article and it was undoubtedly written by a communist, but that's what it says.

And sure, 68 year-old men can look 50, and 68 year old men can operate a firearm, but he didn't have a gun, he didn't look 50. He's a feeble old man delivering newspapers. He's not John Wayne.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, for the third time at least -- the article doesn't say that he got out of the car and approached the officer.

And for the third time,
"Well, I was so shocked I couldn't believe it. He tried to fight him off, right? But he Tasered him anyways — twice."

I think its pretty clear he didn't just walk up to a cooperative subject and tase him outta the blue. That's the guys own wife talking.

To be fair, the article is very vague and reads as a simple, 'I did this' and 'He did that' sorta way.... I am sure there was alot more then that.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

It isn't that we're fortunate things don't work that way here; it's just soooo F-ed up that that's the situation down there. Lucky he didn't get shot? If that's all it takes to get shot, then police shouldn't have guns.

And no, 68 year olds aren't above the law, but leaving a vehicle isn't against the law.

The next time a cop pulls you over for speeding, get out of your vehicle and start walking straight towards him and see what happens. I'm sure he won't mind at all...

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, for the third time at least -- the article doesn't say that he got out of the car and approached the officer.

If he got out of the car and, as you many of you have somehow seem to have deduced out of thin air, he was approaching this cop in a menacing fashion then hell, I wouldn't blame the cop for shooting the guy.

The way the article reads, the cop got out of his car, walked over and zapped him a couple times. Now I know I know, we don't know everything from this article and it was undoubtedly written by a communist, but that's what it says.

And sure, 68 year-old men can look 50, and 68 year old men can operate a firearm, but he didn't have a gun, he didn't look 50. He's a feeble old man delivering newspapers. He's not John Wayne.

The point of thread was to show what a piece of crap article that was. At the bottom it clearly states the man was charged with assaulting a police officer - How did that happen?..the article sure doesnt mention it..it's focus is on the wife bitching about him being tasered..Did he assault the officer while still seated in his truck? After he got tasered? There is a big chunk of the story missing, conviently to paint the RCMP in bad light, this after 2 of their members have been murdered...Yet you seem to think that since "it didnt say" it didn't happen,even though there is some clues to suggest something more happened that what the stupid headline suggest...bad journalism IMO

[corporatejay]

how is it this guy is blind in one eye, can't understand words when he's flustered and yet still is allowed to drive.....that makes me feel safe.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Okay, for the third time at least -- the article doesn't say that he got out of the car and approached the officer.

If he got out of the car and, as you many of you have somehow seem to have deduced out of thin air, he was approaching this cop in a menacing fashion then hell, I wouldn't blame the cop for shooting the guy.

The way the article reads, the cop got out of his car, walked over and zapped him a couple times. Now I know I know, we don't know everything from this article and it was undoubtedly written by a communist, but that's what it says.

And sure, 68 year-old men can look 50, and 68 year old men can operate a firearm, but he didn't have a gun, he didn't look 50. He's a feeble old man delivering newspapers. He's not John Wayne.

"Peters realized this was a bad idea, so he pulled over a block away and got out of the vehicle"

The guy resisted arrest, pulled over, got out of his vehicle, and evidently got in a physical alercation with a cop (according to the wife). That's a tasering 99.9% of the time.

And how is the cop supposed to know he didn't have a gun? And how exactly do you know he's a feeble old man?

[JayP]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The point of thread was to show what a piece of crap article that was. At the bottom it clearly states the man was charged with assaulting a police officer - How did that happen?..the article sure doesnt mention it..it's focus is on the wife bitching about him being tasered..Did he assault the officer while still seated in his truck? After he got tasered? There is a big chunk of the story missing, conviently to paint the RCMP in bad light, this after 2 of their members have been murdered...Yet you seem to think that since "it didnt say" it didn't happen,even though there is some clues to suggest something more happened that what the stupid headline suggest...bad journalism IMO

Yeah the article is clearly biased towards the old man. The main focus of the story should be on the events leading up to the tasering, but there's only a comment from the wife. The rest is just a sob story for the poor old man.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

how is it this guy is blind in one eye, can't understand words when he's flustered and yet still is allowed to drive.....that makes me feel safe.

That jumped out at me too. Jesus, it's like some people just don't realize how dangerous a vehicle can be.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JayP

"Peters realized this was a bad idea, so he pulled over a block away and got out of the vehicle"

The guy resisted arrest, pulled over, got out of his vehicle, and evidently got in a physical alercation with a cop (according to the wife). That's a tasering 99.9% of the time.

And how is the cop supposed to know he didn't have a gun? And how exactly do you know he's a feeble old man?

How do the police know everyone doesn't have a gun?

You guys know why these stories are so rarely in the news? Because they rarely happen. 99% of the time the cops manage to deal with someone without having to use a weapon. Do you think 99% of the people they interact with are 100% co-operative? I don't. So something in the math tells me that they manage to deal with uncooperative or even combative people without either shooting them or tasing them fairly often.

As for the "if he did this in the States, he'd be dead", where are we getting this? If police officers shot every uncooperative or resistant person they came across in the United States every year they'd be shooting hundreds of thousands of people. Haven't you guys ever seen COPS? They don't shoot or tase everyone.

I know he's a feeble old man because he's A) and old man B) half blind and C) has some sort of neurological disorder. What more do you need?

[jamesteterenko]

I think a very telling quote is, "Anne Peters said she had tried to tell the officer her husband suffers a neurological disorder and was unable to comprehend language when he's flustered."

So, after resisting arrest, getting out of the car, he was also ignoring anything that the police officer was saying. I can imagine that the officer was yelling something along the lines of "stop walking", or "put your hands against the car". If I were the officer, and some woman was screaming at me that he is has a neurological disorder and doesn't comprehend what you are saying, I'm pretty sure I would have tasered him too. Someone who is continuing to ignore commands and not thinking clearly while approaching an officer after running away from him is not someone that should be trusted as safe.

James

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The point of thread was to show what a piece of crap article that was. At the bottom it clearly states the man was charged with assaulting a police officer - How did that happen?..the article sure doesnt mention it..it's focus is on the wife bitching about him being tasered..Did he assault the officer while still seated in his truck? After he got tasered? There is a big chunk of the story missing, conviently to paint the RCMP in bad light, this after 2 of their members have been murdered...Yet you seem to think that since "it didnt say" it didn't happen,even though there is some clues to suggest something more happened that what the stupid headline suggest...bad journalism IMO

Oh no doubt it's a poorly written article. And no, I don't think since "it didn't say" that means it didn't happen. Nor do I believe, like some others, that since "it didn't say" it didn't happen he must have hopped out of the car and charged at the cop with his arms in the air.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How do the police know everyone doesn't have a gun?

You guys know why these stories are so rarely in the news? Because they rarely happen. 99% of the time the cops manage to deal with someone without having to use a weapon. Do you think 99% of the people they interact with are 100% co-operative? I don't. So something in the math tells me that they manage to deal with uncooperative or even combative people without either shooting them or tasing them fairly often.

As for the "if he did this in the States, he'd be dead", where are we getting this? If police officers shot every uncooperative or resistant person they came across in the United States every year they'd be shooting hundreds of thousands of people. Haven't you guys ever seen COPS? They don't shoot or tase everyone.

I know he's a feeble old man because he's A) and old man B) half blind and C) has some sort of neurological disorder. What more do you need?

Not all 68 year olds are "feeble old men", from the picture, he definitely looks like one of the more lively ones.

The guy is currently being charged for assaulting a police officer too, so Rouge, in your opinion is the police officer covering his ass or did the guy come up and physically assault him?

How then, should the cop have subdued the suspect Rouge? Maybe tackled him? But because he is such a "feeble old man", perhaps it would have broken his hip, but at least it wouldn't have been in the news.

[Clever_Iggy]

Good for the cop. Stupid old man driving away from a ticket. People can ask why theyre being given a ticket. If they disagree, they can bring it up in court.

All the "fight the man" posts on this thread are hilarious. The clown at UCLA, the dont tase me dude, and moron at the Vancouver airport and this guy are all victims of police brutality. Right.

For the last time, when a cop asks you to do something, do it. If you want to be a martyr and get on youtube, resist, refuse or think youre expressing your right to free speech. It makes for great entertainment and I love to hear the endless excuses people come up with.

Feeble old man. Please. If he's blind and has a neurological disorder, WTF is he driving?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I know he's a feeble old man because he's A) and old man B) half blind and C) has some sort of neurological disorder. What more do you need?

Unfortunately for the cop, he didn't get to read a poorly written newspaper story to form his judgements first.

This cop could not have known that he is half blind or that he has a neurological disorder at the time. Even if he did, it is immaterial.

All the cop knows is that this guy tried to flee from a traffic stop. Strike one. This guy then got out of his car, and came towards the cop. Strike two. At that point, any officer is going to have a weapon in hands.

The wife says he was trying to "fight the cop off", now that could mean anything, including that the guy's disorder led him not to realize it was a cop he went after. That does not make him any less dangerous in the eyes of the cop though. Rather, I would bet such a disorder would make the guy seem more dangerous, because he is now completely unpredictable.

Situations like this are exactly why cops carry tasers in addition to guns. The other alternative was to put him in a body bag.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Its easy for people to say that he wasn't a threat now, after all the dust has cleared. Afterall, hindsight is 20/20. But try putting yourself in the cop's perspective at that moment. Some guy drives away, stops a block later, gets out of the car and approaches you. What if that guy had a concealed weapon, like a handgun. You really don't know what nutjob you've just pulled over. Add to the fact that an RCMP just lost his life a couple of days ago, and you're gonna get a cop that would rather be safe than sorry. I don't know about you, but if I were in the cop's position, I'd do the exact same thing. I'll take public criticism and a review over potentially having my family plan for my funeral, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by 4X4

Of course this sounds like police brutality especially to the victim apologist crowd because the guy is 68.
I've got some news for you people, there are 68 year olds out there that look 50. And there are 50 year olds that carry guns and don't want to get arrested. Cops are getting murdered for doing their jobs. Pulling over bad drivers and drunk drivers is getting officers KILLED!
If poeple don't want to get tased, they need to STFU and do whatever it is that the officer is telling them to do. Even if its unreasonable. Figure it out later with a lawyer.

What's with all this gun talk? I don't see how this relevant at all. From the article there is nothing indicating that he attempted to reach for anything or any indication that he was concealing a weapon. The police don't operate under the assumption that everyone might have a gun, otherwise they would have theirs drawn all the time. Plus for a 68 year old the likelihood for him having a gun would be extremely low.