Naked Wizard gets Tasered (VID: NSFW)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

I honestly would rather get tased and learn my lesson than be in a walking body cast for a few months

Those are the only two choices? Yeesh.

This is a false dilemma--the choices aren't "tase him or beat him senseless." If they were, then every time I meet a cop I have to obey every order he gives me or I'll be tased--and when that happens, I should be happy because he didn't beat me up with his nightstick. Sorry, that's not the society I live in.

I still haven't heard an answer to the most important question--how does the threat to public safety posed by naked dude outweigh the serious health and safety risk posed by taser use?

The assumption seems to be: "well, it's better than beating him up." But ordinarily, cops don't beat people up unless their behaviour is dangerous somehow. Naked guy wasn't all that dangerous. They wouldn't have beaten him up--that was my point. But taser use is okay? Why?

I'm just saying tasers aren't there to offer a convenient alternative to cops who don't feel like subduing a suspect by conventional means. I can tell I'm alone here, but I really feel like there's some tortured logic going on here.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Those are the only two choices? Yeesh.

This is a false dilemma--the choices aren't "tase him or beat him senseless." If they were, then every time I meet a cop I have to obey every order he gives me or I'll be tased--and when that happens, I should be happy because he didn't beat me up with his nightstick. Sorry, that's not the society I live in.

I still haven't heard an answer to the most important question--how does the threat to public safety posed by naked dude outweigh the serious health and safety risk posed by taser use?

The assumption seems to be: "well, it's better than beating him up." But ordinarily, cops don't beat people up unless their behaviour is dangerous somehow. Naked guy wasn't all that dangerous. They wouldn't have beaten him up--that was my point. But taser use is okay? Why?

I'm just saying tasers aren't there to offer a convenient alternative to cops who don't feel like subduing a suspect by conventional means. I can tell I'm alone here, but I really feel like there's some tortured logic going on here.

No, you're not alone at all. I'm a little surprised at the willingness here to accept a taser simply because he was resisting arrest. I appreciate he didn't listen to the police, and that they were very reasonable in the beginning. But is nudity THAT egregious? It's one thing if he was harming or even threatening to harm other people. Then by all means, tase away. But he was just being an naked idiot... I'm not sure that merits getting tased.

Asking it another way: what would the cops have done pre-tasers? Shot him? Or subdued him through other means? I don't believe they would have just beat him up as some people are suggesting. The police are by-and-large much smarter and better at dealing with people than that. Sure some force would have been required but it would have hardly been of the brutal assault kind.

[Crispy's Critter]

I have no issue with the taser really, other than like some have said they seem to go to it fairly quickly nowadays. I would say that the better example of using undue force was having that 280 lb+ cop putting his full weight on his knee and dropping onto the guy's ribs than the taser. Didn't see any reason for the cop to do something that vicious at all.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Hey, the wizard is lucky he didn't perform his "magic" at the Vancouver airport.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by fatso

No, you're not alone at all. I'm a little surprised at the willingness here to accept a taser simply because he was resisting arrest. I appreciate he didn't listen to the police, and that they were very reasonable in the beginning. But is nudity THAT egregious? It's one thing if he was harming or even threatening to harm other people. Then by all means, tase away. But he was just being an naked idiot... I'm not sure that merits getting tased.

Asking it another way: what would the cops have done pre-tasers? Shot him? Or subdued him through other means? I don't believe they would have just beat him up as some people are suggesting. The police are by-and-large much smarter and better at dealing with people than that. Sure some force would have been required but it would have hardly been of the brutal assault kind.

You must be new to CP taser threads. We will go back and forth for a few more pages before this one is over.

Originally Posted by fotze

RCMP would have a tough time convincing us that his stapler (or in this case, peanut) was a bug threat.

I'm not sure if his peanut is big enough to hurt a bug.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

You must be new to CP taser threads. We will go back and forth for a few more pages before this one is over.

You're missing my point, though I guess I was not clear.

I'm not against tasers per se, though I think they should be used sparingly. I have no problems with tasers being used when an individual is being violent or is an oilers fan. I'm just skeptical that it was needed here, particularly since (a) I don't think nudity is that awful an offence, and (b) magical mystery peen - from what I could see - was not being violent.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Those are the only two choices? Yeesh.

If they were, then every time I meet a cop I have to obey every order he gives me or I'll be tased--and when that happens,

This is exactly why I will never get tased. If I cop asked me to put my clothes on, I'd put my clothes on. That would be the end of it.

That guy wasn't cooperating with them. Police Departments can't use physical force to subdue people anymore because there's always a video and always a jury willing to award millions to some bum who couldn't just sit down and let the police do their job. I'm not saying all cops are right, but geez, isn't the easiest solution to simply respect their authority, even if you don't agree with it, and do what you're told until the problem is resolved?

Before tasers, physical force would've had to be used in this type of situation, because they obviously couldn't wrestle the guy to the ground without the altercation becoming more physical. Then you'd have cries of police brutality because the poor naked guy couldn't defend himself. All this idiot had to do was put his clothes on, I really don't think that's too much to ask of anyone.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Those are the only two choices? Yeesh.

This is a false dilemma--the choices aren't "tase him or beat him senseless." If they were, then every time I meet a cop I have to obey every order he gives me or I'll be tased--and when that happens, I should be happy because he didn't beat me up with his nightstick. Sorry, that's not the society I live in.

I still haven't heard an answer to the most important question--how does the threat to public safety posed by naked dude outweigh the serious health and safety risk posed by taser use?

The assumption seems to be: "well, it's better than beating him up." But ordinarily, cops don't beat people up unless their behaviour is dangerous somehow. Naked guy wasn't all that dangerous. They wouldn't have beaten him up--that was my point. But taser use is okay? Why?

I'm just saying tasers aren't there to offer a convenient alternative to cops who don't feel like subduing a suspect by conventional means. I can tell I'm alone here, but I really feel like there's some tortured logic going on here.

Normally I agree 100% with this, and have spoken out against the overuse of tazers and police brutaility. And yeah, often it does seem like they are overused because officers don't want to work harder than they feel they need to, or even because they get a little trigger happy. I'm just trying to figure out if this is one of those cases.

I also agree about what you are saying about dangerous criminals vs ones that obviously aren't dangerous, and the need to use more force or less force depending on the situation.

And yeah, I do think these cops could have done more with the conventional methods this time around.

I just also think they did seem to be using the tazers relatively safely when I watch the video. They gave him a chance to calm down after every hit, they DID try to subdue him by other means first. And I guess the thing that bugs me the most is they gave him a ton of time to comply and for some reason he was trying to make and example of them. Trying to turn it into a me vs. 'the man' situation. It almost appeared like he was trying to provoke them, and they did start of very patiently.

So I tried thinking about it. When the way he was acting out, maybe it WOULD have taken an undue amount of force to get him in cuffs. They could struggle and he might break and arm or something, even if they were trying to use as litle force as possible. I really can't say that wouldn't happen. It might have.

Normally I'm totally on your side on issues like this, but in watching this video it does seem that while yeah, they could have done things more conventionally, they also didn't overstep their bounds either.

I guess I can see both sides of the argument in this particular case, that's all.

[Locke]

I think one of those cops is Alex Burrows.

[The Fonz]

Love that he got tased, bro. He was breaking the law, and when the cops calmly tried to reason with him, he was an absolute ######.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ice

This is exactly why I will never get tased. If I cop asked me to put my clothes on, I'd put my clothes on. That would be the end of it.

That guy wasn't cooperating with them. Police Departments can't use physical force to subdue people anymore because there's always a video and always a jury willing to award millions to some bum who couldn't just sit down and let the police do their job. I'm not saying all cops are right, but geez, isn't the easiest solution to simply respect their authority, even if you don't agree with it, and do what you're told until the problem is resolved?

Before tasers, physical force would've had to be used in this type of situation, because they obviously couldn't wrestle the guy to the ground without the altercation becoming more physical. Then you'd have cries of police brutality because the poor naked guy couldn't defend himself. All this idiot had to do was put his clothes on, I really don't think that's too much to ask of anyone.

This is the kind of sheep mentality that is unacceptable. So a cop has essentially unlimited authority over you because they have a badge and a gun? More-so, if you don't do what they say, then they have the moral right to subdue you in whatever violent way they deem necessary?

Jeez... cops are just bureaucrats with guns. They only enforce the law. They don't have extraneous powers to maintain order at all costs. If you are being violent and putting the public in danger, then sure, the cops should be able to go all out to prevent harm, but in the case of enforcing semi-harmless laws or bylaws, violence by the police should be unacceptable regardless of the situation.

[pope04]

Jeez, it reminds me of a time my wife and I had to forcibly dress our two-year-old son. The only difference was we didn't have to taze him and my boy was hung better.

[Ice]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is the kind of sheep mentality that is unacceptable. So a cop has essentially unlimited authority over you because they have a badge and a gun? More-so, if you don't do what they say, then they have the moral right to subdue you in whatever violent way they deem necessary?

Jeez... cops are just bureaucrats with guns. They only enforce the law. They don't have extraneous powers to maintain order at all costs. If you are being violent and putting the public in danger, then sure, the cops should be able to go all out to prevent harm, but in the case of enforcing semi-harmless laws or bylaws, violence by the police should be unacceptable regardless of the situation.

The police do not have unlimited authority over me. What they do have is an obligation to enforce the law. Regardless of whether you agree with a law or not, as a citizen you are obligated to obey it. Its how we maintain order in society. So yes, even something as silly as putting clothes on is somthing you do if asked by law enforcement. If I don't like what they're saying to me, I can deal with it in a non-confrontational way. Should I decide to become beligerant, I should also know I'm amplifying the situation and there will be consequences for doing so. Again, I'm intelligent enough that this will never happen to me.

I disagree with the speed limits on freeways, does that mean if I get pulled over for speeding I should be allowed to pitch a fit and argue with the cop about it? When he tells me to settle down I can become indignate and get any other people around to join in my fight? Then when he tells me to get have a seat I should refuse? Come on, like it or not, police have the authority to force me to comply with the laws, that's their job. Its up to ME to decide how intense I want the situation to be.

Its ridiculous. This man had every opportunity to put his clothes on. PUT CLOTHES ON, my God, is there an easier solution to this problem? He refused to do it. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for people who think they're above the law, violent or not. If you choose to break laws, you choose to suffer the consequences. Take responsibility for one's actions and stop blaming police for enforcing the law.

[metallicat]

And it wasn't just that, he started to actively resist arrest once things got escalated a little more. Time to end that situation before it got really out of hand.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

And it wasn't just that, he started to actively resist arrest once things got escalated a little more. Time to end that situation before it got really out of hand.

What? The guy gets a 1-inch erection? He sure wasn't hiding a gun anywhere.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ice

The police do not have unlimited authority over me. What they do have is an obligation to enforce the law. Regardless of whether you agree with a law or not, as a citizen you are obligated to obey it. Its how we maintain order in society. So yes, even something as silly as putting clothes on is somthing you do if asked by law enforcement. If I don't like what they're saying to me, I can deal with it in a non-confrontational way. Should I decide to become beligerant, I should also know I'm amplifying the situation and there will be consequences for doing so. Again, I'm intelligent enough that this will never happen to me.

I disagree with the speed limits on freeways, does that mean if I get pulled over for speeding I should be allowed to pitch a fit and argue with the cop about it? When he tells me to settle down I can become indignate and get any other people around to join in my fight? Then when he tells me to get have a seat I should refuse? Come on, like it or not, police have the authority to force me to comply with the laws, that's their job. Its up to ME to decide how intense I want the situation to be.

Its ridiculous. This man had every opportunity to put his clothes on. PUT CLOTHES ON, my God, is there an easier solution to this problem? He refused to do it. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for people who think they're above the law, violent or not. If you choose to break laws, you choose to suffer the consequences. Take responsibility for one's actions and stop blaming police for enforcing the law.

Is enforcing the law jamming a taser gun against someone's spine when you and your fellow officers outweigh the perp by 3:1?

I have no problem with police officers enforcing the law. As I said, they are bureaucrats who happen to be armed. I do think they can show some restraint and intelligence when dealing with simple situations, such as getting a 210 lb drugged out idiot to put his wizard's costume back on.

What if you do get pulled over by a police officer for something you don't feel is necessary and you choose (perhaps unwisely) to protest it in a loud fashion. Does that give the officer the right to brutally and repeatedly shock you with a taser gun so they can cuff you?

[metallicat]

So a guy has to have a gun or a weapon before the police can actively arrest the guy with some force? Whatever. I'd hate to see a police service with you at the helm giving orders.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is enforcing the law jamming a taser gun against someone's spine when you and your fellow officers outweigh the perp by 3:1?

I have no problem with police officers enforcing the law. As I said, they are bureaucrats who happen to be armed. I do think they can show some restraint and intelligence when dealing with simple situations, such as getting a 210 lb drugged out idiot to put his wizard's costume back on.

What if you do get pulled over by a police officer for something you don't feel is necessary and you choose (perhaps unwisely) to protest it in a loud fashion. Does that give the officer the right to brutally and repeatedly shock you with a taser gun so they can cuff you?

How about just accept the ticket you are given and then fight it in a court of law? Seems pretty reasonable to me. You aren't going to get anywhere with cops by acting like total ######bags.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

How about just accept the ticket you are given and then fight it in a court of law? Seems pretty reasonable to me. You aren't going to get anywhere with cops by acting like total ######bags.

That's what I would do. The thing that gets me is this idea some people have that if you act like a ######bag or a jackass it somehow gives the cops free license to go King Kong on you.