They didn't go King Kong on the wizard until after he refused to put his clothes back on multiple times, resisted arrest, and then grabbed one of the cops junk.
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.
1. If you persist in this false dilemma between "tasering" and "no force at all," then this discussion is pointless.
2. You appear not to understand the purpose of a police force. It is not to intimidate the public into obedience of the law under some Hobbesian assumption that without their presence everything would descend into chaos. It is to be the public administrators of our agreed-upon legal system, and as such their power is limited in very important ways, which peter12 alluded to. This is why they don't beat people with nightsticks just because they feel like it.
What you describe is actually far more terrifying than a police force with peter12 at the helm. His police force, I take it from his comments--would act always with an eye to upholding at once the law and the rights of the citizenry, and to see their primary role as public caregivers of the common good with law as their instrument. In other words, peter describes the modern police force under liberal democracy--the one that we are supposed to have in our enlightened society.
Your preference (apparently) would be for a police force that requires obedience to commands on pain of physical abuse, regardless of the nature of the threat posed to the public good by your disobedience. You can find examples of this in the world and throughout history. But you don't want to live in any of those places.
Here's the crux of the matter: police are charged with enforcing the law and protecting the public good. They are not invested with unilateral authority to abuse the public in the service of nothing in particular. It's an important distinction--because it marks the line between democracy and dictatorship.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Don't forget that by the time the tazer is employed the cops are surrounded by what is becoming a large crowd. Now chances are they aren't going to get out of hand but that is tough to assess not knowing the state of mind of all the people around and "mob mentality".
The cops needed to bring the situation under control quickly. If anything they were too patient to start with which allowed it get to the level it did.
I won't go on a long rant about it, but being a cop is a very tough job. I wouldn't want to do it. It's amazing what a rough ride cops get alot of times (no, I'm not saying they are always right).
Armchair policing is every bit as easy as armchair coaching, armchair goaltending and armchair general managing.
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.
There are lots of people I'd like to taser just because they're ######bags. Sadly, I have to agree to thier equal standing in society and refrain from doing what I'd love to do.
I do think that in the case of Canucks' fans, no jury would convict me.
I think the cops were pretty reasonable at first. They gave the guy plenty of chances to comply with an order that was totally legitimate. I'm pretty sure I saw a guy walking by with a kid (~10y/o). I wouldn't want to see a drunken moron prancing around naked, antagonizing three cops and I certainly wouldn't want my kid to see that either (if I had a kid).
They finally resorted to the taser. And I had no problem with that. But it seemed like they tazed him a helluva lot more than they needed to. It seemed to go on forever. How many jolts does the guy need? That was way over the top, IMO.
1. If you persist in this false dilemma between "tasering" and "no force at all," then this discussion is pointless.
2. You appear not to understand the purpose of a police force. It is not to intimidate the public into obedience of the law under some Hobbesian assumption that without their presence everything would descend into chaos. It is to be the public administrators of our agreed-upon legal system, and as such their power is limited in very important ways, which peter12 alluded to. This is why they don't beat people with nightsticks just because they feel like it.
What you describe is actually far more terrifying than a police force with peter12 at the helm. His police force, I take it from his comments--would act always with an eye to upholding at once the law and the rights of the citizenry, and to see their primary role as public caregivers of the common good with law as their instrument. In other words, peter describes the modern police force under liberal democracy--the one that we are supposed to have in our enlightened society.
Your preference (apparently) would be for a police force that requires obedience to commands on pain of physical abuse, regardless of the nature of the threat posed to the public good by your disobedience. You can find examples of this in the world and throughout history. But you don't want to live in any of those places.
Here's the crux of the matter: police are charged with enforcing the law and protecting the public good. They are not invested with unilateral authority to abuse the public in the service of nothing in particular. It's an important distinction--because it marks the line between democracy and dictatorship.
I was responding to peter when he said that the guy wasn't hiding a gun. I took that to mean he didn't think the police should have been interfering unless he had a gun. There's too much coddling of criminals in this society. I am not trying to suggest police should go around beating people up for no reason, so if that's the way you are reading my comments, you're interpreting them wrong.
I was responding to peter when he said that the guy wasn't hiding a gun. I took that to mean he didn't think the police should have been interfering unless he had a gun. There's too much coddling of criminals in this society. I am not trying to suggest police should go around beating people up for no reason, so if that's the way you are reading my comments, you're interpreting them wrong.
I guess to me there's a massive spectrum of difference between "coddling criminals" and tasering harmless naked drunk/stoned people because you don't happen to like them.
I wouldn't like the guy either--and in no way am I advocating public nudity--especially in his case. But I do think excessive force was used given the circumstances. A taser should be like any weapon in a cop's arsenal: a successful day is when they don't have to use it.
Correct me if i'm mistaken, but didn't they try to reason with him? didn't they try to arrest him before using the taser? Didn't he resist? Didn't he grab at one of the cops before they used the taser? Didn't he continue to resist after the first taser? he put himself in the situation he was in and at each of those times could have complied, he didn't. he got exactly what he deserved.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to monkeyman For This Useful Post:
Correct me if i'm mistaken, but didn't they try to reason with him? didn't they try to arrest him before using the taser? Didn't he resist? Didn't he grab at one of the cops before they used the taser? Didn't he continue to resist after the first taser? he put himself in the situation he was in and at each of those times could have complied, he didn't. he got exactly what he deserved.
Enforcing the law is not akin to getting into a barroom brawl. Police, as constitutionally constrained officers of the State, are supposed to be held to a higher standard than some tough guy who "has been pushed too far."
If that guy's wriggling around is your definition of "resisting arrest"... then yeah, I guess he did deserve to be roughed up. As stated before, outside of the bounds of good taste, this man was no threat to the police officers or the surrounding public.
I stand by what i said. he was resisting. The cops in no way acted in a manner that would liken it to a barroom brawl. He got what he deserved.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
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.
Taser threads are always a good time.
Clearly you don't know the society you live in. What you do have to do is obey laws enforced by police.
Like it or not there are laws in most societies and they vary in reasonableness and seriousness. Cops don't make them, they just enforce them. If you are breaking one of them, regardless of whether there is a threat to public safety or not, should police look the other way and make that decision that this law is simply not reasonable? They do have discretion, but I would suggest it's a pretty slippery slope once you start making decisions like that, not to mention illegal.
Police have use of force models. At least the vast majority of WELL trained services do. That being said, every use of force option needs to be weighed, assessed and reassessed throughout an encounter. Taser use in this circumstance probably wasn't warranted in all models, but in my opinion, it's the LEAST violent of other less lethal tactics.
Clearly you don't understand police training. Fact is, tasers are there as an alternative to subduing offenders through conventional means (I assume you mean a good ole' a$% kickin') and for the most part actually result in less injuries to both offenders and police.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post:
I don't have a problem with the taser here. I'm usually on the other side of that debate, but in this case he was very resistant, and the cops gave him a very reasonable amount of time to cooperate without even getting in trouble. Then they used physical force, and thirdly resorted to a taser.
Different from the other taser vidoes out there, where the taser was used as 1st choice.
That guys and idiot, and I never knew a penis could be so small. WTF?
I'd be interested to hear the rational behind deeming this guy completely harmless. What you see in the video could only be a mere snapshot of what transpired. Not to mention the fact that no one has any idea what drugs this guy is actually on, if any. Just cause he's naked and has a small doodle doesn't make him harmless.
imo, they gave him more than enough opportunity to stay, just clothe up.
When he refused quite a few times, they tried to remove him with little force.
When he again resisted, they tried to arm-bar him and remove him that way.
When he continued to resist, they tasered him.
When he continued to resist a taser and comply, they did it again.
It;s not like they walked up to him and just pulled out the taser and jammed it in him. There are several cases where police use the taser too quickly. This case, not even close. How many opportunities does this guy need?
Last edited by Jayems; 04-26-2009 at 11:13 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Jayems For This Useful Post:
