Another "Taser-wielding RCMP officer"

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

HAHA... Rouge... you lost any credibility there... Police state? You can't be serious... I don't get how this story is relevant to everything the comes along with a 'police state'- oppression, etc, etc. That's right, he was oppressed b/c he resisted arrest, assaulted a cop and got tasered for it... riiiight.

See the post above yours.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This argument is actually kind of depressing. You are volunteering to live in a police state.

Have we really become such a bunch of pussies?

LOL I am volunteering to obey the law. Maybe that old idiot should as well. Got no sympathy for a young idiot or an old one. If he has reached 68 and hasn't got it figured out then tough luck. I couldn't care less what the cop did to him because it never had to happen. It really is just that simple ---Obey the law and don't be an ahole and life will be a whole lot easier!!!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

LOL I am volunteering to obey the law... Got no sympathy for a young idiot or an old one. ... I couldn't care less what the cop did to him because it never had to happen.

You aren't volunteering for anything.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

You aren't volunteering for anything.

You're volunteering to live in a fairy tale land full of rainbows and unicorns

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

You're volunteering to live in a fairy tale land full of rainbows and unicorns

Ooh snap.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ahh, the good old "give your head a shake". Well played.

Anyway, my response was to that specific poster. He said earlier in the thread that he believes that speed cameras are a cash grab and that they do nothing for public safety, but he abides by them and believes people who don't are stupid because "it's the law". That's the depressing part.

As for the case at hand: I think the old guy broke the law -- fine. The real question for me is "did the cop use excessive force" (aka "break the law"). If he didn't, good for him and job well done. But if he did use excessive force I think we should be concerned about it, and I don't think we should just pass it off and say "well, the old coot had it coming", which is pretty much the consensus around here.

I am not concerned about it all. All i can gather is you are one of those types who don't believe people need to take responsibility for thier actions..In this case we have a 68 year old who (as i stated earlier this fine piece of journalism is completely slanted in his favor) drove off when he was in the process of getting a ticket, then stopped, got out of his car and approached the officer....he is lucky all he got was tasered...guess what bro, this doesnt happen if he obeys the law...his fault..with 2 cops already shot DEAD in cold blood ... its a highly sensitive time ... and it was bad judgement on his part...but hey forget about what he did...lets call it excessive force and fear the police state we are becoming..blah blah..having said that i do see where you are coming from, i was a teenager once and thought the same stupid things..then i grew up

[Burninator]

Why is it so unreasonable to question police tactics and actions on this board?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

I am not concerned about it all. All i can gather is you are one of those types who don't believe people need to take responsibility for thier actions..In this case we have a 68 year old who (as i stated earlier this fine piece of journalism is completely slanted in his favor) drove off when he was in the process of getting a ticket, then stopped, got out of his car and approached the officer....he is lucky all he got was tasered...guess what bro, this doesnt happen if he obeys the law...his fault..with 2 cops already shot DEAD in cold blood ... its a highly sensitive time ... and it was bad judgement on his part...but hey forget about what he did...lets call it excessive force and fear the police state we are becoming..blah blah..having said that i do see where you are coming from, i was a teenager once and thought the same stupid things..then i grew up

The drama. The insults. All very exciting.

Mommy, when I grow up, can I use the caps lock button?

Look buddy, if you don't care about the police using excessive force then bully for you. I guess it makes you an adult. Congratulations.

If this cop used the proper level of force and did his job well then good for him. Give him a raise for all I care.

If he didn't do his job properly and used an excessive level of force then (and here's where my stupid teenager idealism kicks in, so sit down) we should probably look into it.

Is that too wild for you?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Why is it so unreasonable to question police tactics and actions on this board?

It's not unreasonable to question polics tatics when warranted. We have yet to see a scenario where it is warranted...The RCMP are in a tough position, there is a segment of the population that will question them about the safety of their officers when they are killed, and that same segment seems to question them when an officer follows protocol...You don't seem to understand that officers are trained to expect the unexpected and treat all as equal..the actions of this 68 year old were competely out of line.

[ricosuave]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Why is it so unreasonable to question police tactics and actions on this board?

because no one seems to ever question the 'victim' tactics and actions.

I think what people have an issue with is that the SAME people bring up the SAME point EVERY TIME. It seems several of you question the police regardless of the situation. While I agree with you that the use of force is a contentious issue, and obviously requires scrutiny, I question your ability to judge it since it is clear you don't know the tactics and training of police. In essence, you are blindly questioning something you know little about.

[Flames_Gimp]

Tasers are awesome, I hope more and more cops start using them on a daily basis!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I think what people have an issue with is that the SAME people bring up the SAME point EVERY TIME. It seems several of you question the police regardless of the situation. While I agree with you that the use of force is a contentious issue, and obviously requires scrutiny, I question your ability to judge it since it is clear you don't know the tactics and training of police. In essence, you are blindly questioning something you know little about.

Well that's the beauty of a message board, I guess. Or, if we want to get grandiose, that's the beauty of a democracy. You don't have to be an expert to question things.

I think I know just as much about it as the people who blindly support the police no matter what they do. You know, the people who apparently believe police have two options -- the gun or the electricity. The same people who believe that in America every person who doesn't co-operate with the police ends up dead.

And I don't question the police regardless of the situation, I question the police when the situation looks questionable. A disabled senior citizen getting tasered twice is, to my admittedly untrained eye, questionable. Is that so wrong? Or "stupid", as someone said?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well that's the beauty of a message board, I guess. Or, if we want to get grandiose, that's the beauty of a democracy. You don't have to be an expert to question things.

I think I know just as much about it as the people who blindly support the police no matter what they do. You know, the people who apparently believe police have two options -- the gun or the electricity. The same people who believe that in America every person who doesn't co-operate with the police ends up dead.

And I don't question the police regardless of the situation, I question the police when the situation looks questionable. A disabled senior citizen getting tasered twice is, to my admittedly untrained eye, questionable. Is that so wrong? Or "stupid", as someone said?

Yes it is, because you are so clearly anti-cop that all you want to consider only that an "disabled senior citizen getting tasered twice", If you considered all the facts, such as this said disabled senior driving off while the cop was writing him up, stopping, then getting out of his car approaching the cop...etc, all the while being charged with assault,and not even brothering with filing a compliant, but instead going to the media with his "feel sorry" for me story that you just soaked up...heck the bigger issue in all this is how a blind, disabled senior with mental issues is able to drive to begin with...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Yes it is, because you are so clearly anti-cop that all you want to consider only that an "disabled senior citizen getting tasered twice", If you considered all the facts, such as this said disabled senior driving off while the cop was writing him up, stopping, then getting out of his car approaching the cop...etc, all the while being charged with assault,and not even brothering with filing a compliant, but instead going to the media with his "feel sorry" for me story that you just soaked up...heck the bigger issue in all this is how a blind, disabled senior with mental issues is able to drive to begin with...

I know I'm stupid and all, but I'm pretty sure I'm smart enough to know that we've been over this all once or twice. Do you remember that, professor?

"Clearly anti-cop". I love it.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well that's the beauty of a message board, I guess. Or, if we want to get grandiose, that's the beauty of a democracy. You don't have to be an expert to question things.

I think I know just as much about it as the people who blindly support the police no matter what they do. You know, the people who apparently believe police have two options -- the gun or the electricity. The same people who believe that in America every person who doesn't co-operate with the police ends up dead.

And I don't question the police regardless of the situation, I question the police when the situation looks questionable. A disabled senior citizen getting tasered twice is, to my admittedly untrained eye, questionable. Is that so wrong? Or "stupid", as someone said?

Correct. The beauty of a message board is that anyone can (and will unfortunately) put their 2 cents in regardless of their background or knowledge of the issue. But what really makes forums great is the ability to learn from other posters, to perhaps see things a little differently and wonder if maybe just maybe my view is uninformed or just completely off base.

I don't think anyone, that is applauding the use of the taser in this instance is, is blindly supporting police. Quite the contrary. They are able to read the article with skepticism. To realize that there is possible a lot more to the story. Even acknowledging that fact, there are several indicators in the story that would leave a 'reasonable person' to believe that the tasering was justified. Certainly it is not wrong to question the use of force. But, IMO, it is wrong to question it in the light of the article itself.

Personally, I am not one of those guys who believes that in the US he would have been shot. However, I can say, that without a taser there might have been a strong possibility he might have been staring down the barrel of the a gun. Whether he would have actually been shot or not, who knows as each cop has their own thresh hold for GBH or death.

I still don't get how you can turn the article itself into such an ever simplified statement as, ' A disabled senior citizen getting tasered twice...'. Do you honestly believe that's all it was. That is exactly why people think you are anti-cop. You have over-simplified it to fit what we perceive as your agenda. Further, you tend to ignore relevant facts that would lead you down a different path.

Seriously, reread the story and pretend you are some guy walking to work and observed the whole thing. Keep in mind that I am willing to bet the old guy wasn't the most pleasant guy at the time.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I don't think anyone, that is applauding the use of the taser in this instance is, is blindly supporting police. Quite the contrary. They are able to read the article with skepticism. To realize that there is possible a lot more to the story. Even acknowledging that fact, there are several indicators in the story that would leave a 'reasonable person' to believe that the tasering was justified. Certainly it is not wrong to question the use of force. But, IMO, it is wrong to question it in the light of the article itself.

I'm pretty sure I'm media-savvy enough to read stories with some amount of skepticism.

I'm also skeptical enough to be a little skeptical when a bunch of guys start crowing immediately that what the cop did was justified when they don't know anything more than I do. So it works both ways.

The article certainly has a slant, I can see that, but that doesn't mean the exact opposite of what it says is true by default.

You know what this whole thing reminds me of? All the eye-rolling that went on when me and the other cop-haters were "skeptical" enough to think something was slightly amiss about those "protesters" in Quebec.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I still don't get how you can turn the article itself into such an ever simplified statement as, ' A disabled senior citizen getting tasered twice...'. Do you honestly believe that's all it was. That is exactly why people think you are anti-cop. You have over-simplified it to fit what we perceive as your agenda. Further, you tend to ignore relevant facts that would lead you down a different path.

A disabled senior citizen was tasered twice. That's what happened, or that's at least a big part of the story. It's not oversimplified. But of course I don't believe that's all it was -- I never said that's all it was and I figured that was just sort of assumed. I know the cop didn't just walk up to some random old coot and zap him.

What do you perceive my agenda to be, by the way?

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Seriously, reread the story and pretend you are some guy walking to work and observed the whole thing. Keep in mind that I am willing to bet the old guy wasn't the most pleasant guy at the time.

I can see it going down two ways. 1) it was justified and he didn't have a choice but to use the weapon and 2) the cop handled the situation poorly and used the weapon improperly and over zealously.

It's #2 that appears to be the kicker. To even suggest that the guy might not have done everything perfectly makes me "anti-cop".

Anyway, the suggestion that I lack a skeptical eye because I'm questioning the conduct of law enforcement is actually kind of funny.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I can see it going down two ways. 1) it was justified and he didn't have a choice but to use the weapon and 2) the cop handled the situation poorly and used the weapon improperly and over zealously.

It's #2 that appears to be the kicker. To even suggest that the guy might not have done everything perfectly makes me "anti-cop".

Anyway, the suggestion that I lack a skeptical eye because I'm questioning the conduct of law enforcement is actually kind of funny.

I am pretty well done with this as it appears you simply have no intention of seeing the other side. Based on your theory, the fact force was used leads you to question the police. Really, its the outcome not merely the events that lead to question the use of force. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Again, for about the millionth time, what makes us perceive you as 'anti-cop' is that you question the use of force REGARDLESS of whether there's evidence that it's use was justified. To me when his own wife states, ".He tried to fight him off.." it's pretty much case closed. I am sorry, but when you are fighting a cop, whether you're 68, 28 or 16, you are going to have to expect a certain level of force used against you. In this case, it was a taser and based on what I have read and linked previously, a taser is certainly justified. Are there better means to subdue an assaultive subject? I guess that depends on what the particular officer is comfortable with. Hell, if it was me, I probably would just punched him straight in the flux capacitor.

So lemme present you this: You are a police officer in this shoes. Same scenario. You don't know the individual nor do you know what he is capable of. All you know is that, he didn't agree with your ticket, then got in his car and drove off, then stopped several blocks away and got out of his car. Now although the article doesn't say it, I can expect neither he nor his wife were wishing the cop a Merry Xmas before he fled or after he stopped the car. What would you do? You are well trained and have a young family at home. Be honest.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I am pretty well done with this as it appears you simply have no intention of seeing the other side.

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.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Again, for about the millionth time, what makes us perceive you as 'anti-cop' is that you question the use of force REGARDLESS of whether there's evidence that it's use was justified.

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.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

So lemme present you this: You are a police officer in this shoes. Same scenario. You don't know the individual nor do you know what he is capable of. All you know is that, he didn't agree with your ticket, then got in his car and drove off, then stopped several blocks away and got out of his car. Now although the article doesn't say it, I can expect neither he nor his wife were wishing the cop a Merry Xmas before he fled or after he stopped the car. What would you do? You are well trained and have a young family at home. Be honest.

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?

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).