Naked Wizard gets Tasered (VID: NSFW)

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Maybe it was chilly out there?

I'm still going with "another wizard cast a penis-shrinking spell on him."

[Itse]

Man, those cops suck at their job. Three guys that size and they can't handle one pudgy hippie without a taser?

Really professional guys could propably have handled the whole thing by talking, "the wizard" didn't really look that much off his marbles.

I'd hate to have those guys around when someone actually big and dangerous needed stopping.

I don't think I've ever seen field officers that much out of shape here, let alone three at once. Point for Finland I guess.

How bout I make a deal with you- grab a set a hand cuffs and 2 other buddies, then make a 4th buddy the 'arrestee'. Tell him resist while you three try and handcuff him.

He is resisting not being assaultive, thus you can't kick him in the face or fire elbow strikes to the back of his skull.

Remember there is a large crowd who appears sympathetic to the arrestee and video cameras watching your every move. There might even be media there.

Then remember sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

Things getting a little more thought provoking or is coming over the top turnbuckle with a big elbow smash still what would be best practice.

[worth]

One of the cops should have put the wizard garb on and cast a lvl 40 frost nova to subdue their suspect.

PS, I think it's called a nubbin.

[3thirty]

if you break the law you deserve what happens to you and resisting is breaking the law

[Locke]

Does anyone care what happens to Wizards? When did we start caring caring about the welfare of Wizards? I was not consulted regarding this policy shift.

Obviously wizards are related to hobbits.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

I've seen better hung babies on Nirvana album covers.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

How bout I make a deal with you- grab a set a hand cuffs and 2 other buddies, then make a 4th buddy the 'arrestee'. Tell him resist while you three try and handcuff him.

He is resisting not being assaultive, thus you can't kick him in the face or fire elbow strikes to the back of his skull.

Remember there is a large crowd who appears sympathetic to the arrestee and video cameras watching your every move. There might even be media there.

Then remember sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

Things getting a little more thought provoking or is coming over the top turnbuckle with a big elbow smash still what would be best practice.

BentWookie, it's ok to disagree without being a smug nubbin about it.

On point: things do get a little more interesting... especially since no one was advocating the big elbow smash to the face in lieu of getting tased.

Coachella was in the U.S., but I'll play along with the Criminal Code. In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - R. v. Magiksan (2003), 19 C.R. (6th) 330 - the judge said the following about s. 26:

24 However, section 26 of the Criminal Code provides that when peace officers are "authorized by law to use force" (as in the arrest situations referred to) they are "criminally responsible for any excess of the force used according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess".
25 In the result, although force likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm is permissible in the process of arrest described in section 25(4), that force must be reasonable and proportionate. A police officer who resorts to force which is excessive having regard to "the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess", is acting unlawfully.
26 It necessarily follows that it is a required element of both of the offences of assault police and obstruct police that the officers involved must, themselves, have been lawfully engaged in the execution of their duties at the time of the alleged assault and obstruction.
27 The nature and quality of the act that must be considered begins with the decision to use force of any kind in the first instance (s. 25(1)). Justification for that decision, once made, is limited by all of the circumstances that affect the "nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess". Some such circumstances would include:
-
the nature and seriousness of the offence for which the arrest is being made (one does not engage a bulldozer when a flyswatter is sufficient).
-
the certitude of the fact of the offence which is the basis of the arrest having taken place (Persons are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The more that is known about the circumstances that establish guilt, the more thorough the inquiry, the more complete the objective evidence and the more reasonable the grounds upon which the arrest is made are important considerations which govern necessity and reasonableness).
-
the need for detention as an aspect of intervention;
-
the protection of the officers and other persons from violence;
-
the prospect of flight/escape;
-
the likelihood of continuation/resumption of offending conduct;
-
the apparent physical condition of the person being arrested and/or alleged victims;
-
police modules and training affecting the use of force;
-
the prospect of escalation and retaliation;
-
knowledge of the identity and access to the person to be arrested; (A person who is to be arrested does not, of necessity, have to be arrested at that time and place if use of force is contemplated when it is reasonable that this can be accomplished on another occasion without violence or with less violence.);
-
the nature and extent of the force reasonably contemplated as likely to be necessary;
-
other exigent circumstances.

I take the decision to be saying a few things.

First, police have the right to restrain lawbreakers.

Second, and however, that right is restrained in a number of important ways:

(a) that force must be proportional and reasonable - i.e. must not be out of whack with the offence they are trying to prosecute.
(b) and, contrary to what you were saying earlier, police are in fact encouraged to use their discretion in assessing the appropriate force. Discretion, imo, is crucial and is what makes most police excellent and great at their job.
(c) and, last, the exercise of police force in such instances may be subject to scrutiny. Doesn't mean it will be punished, but it must be explained. Police cannot do what they like simply because you've broken the law (as suggested by another poster).

I don't think anyone really feels too bad for Wizard-dink. I think those of us questioning the tasing are wondering if it was really the most reasonable and proportional response to the situation. Maybe it's sanctioned by their operating manual... I have no idea. But it's certainly a right to be question their actions, even if they end up being justified.

Originally Posted by fatso

BentWookie, it's ok to disagree without being a smug nubbin about it.

On point: things do get a little more interesting... especially since no one was advocating the big elbow smash to the face in lieu of getting tased.

Coachella was in the U.S., but I'll play along with the Criminal Code. In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice - R. v. Magiksan (2003), 19 C.R. (6th) 330 - the judge said the following about s. 26:



I take the decision to be saying a few things.

First, police have the right to restrain lawbreakers.

Second, and however, that right is restrained in a number of important ways:

(a) that force must be proportional and reasonable - i.e. must not be out of whack with the offence they are trying to prosecute.
(b) and, contrary to what you were saying earlier, police are in fact encouraged to use their discretion in assessing the appropriate force. Discretion, imo, is crucial and is what makes most police excellent and great at their job.
(c) and, last, the exercise of police force in such instances may be subject to scrutiny. Doesn't mean it will be punished, but it must be explained. Police cannot do what they like simply because you've broken the law (as suggested by another poster).

I don't think anyone really feels too bad for Wizard-dink. I think those of us questioning the tasing are wondering if it was really the most reasonable and proportional response to the situation. Maybe it's sanctioned by their operating manual... I have no idea. But it's certainly a right to be question their actions, even if they end up being justified.

Not sure how you got I was being smug (and I would respond to Nubbin but I have no idea what that means) from a post on the interweb, but whatever you want to think is fine with me. I was simply giving another perspective. And the comment about the elbow smash is an obviously (poor) attempt at humour.

As far as the decision goes, it's not exactly recent and I will try to find some more recent decisions if you care. Fact remains, the trier of fact, needs to make the decision whether force was excessive and yes, all that is taken into account- and must be taken into account by police. Exemplifies my point perfectly. However, I believe what you are getting at is the if the arrest is for something minor, the use of force must be proportional to that. So, in this case nudity or an indecent act is a relatively minor offense and thus police must temper there use of force. Definitely true. But once you start resisting arrest, I would suggest you enter into a different area of offenses of force.

P.S. Fatso is a smug nubbin.

Double post.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

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.

you don't think those are 'smug' comments? particularly towards someone who is carrying a civilized debate? if not, then i guess i'm wrong.

by no means was the decision i cited meant to be the most recent or authoritative. i liked it 'cause of the summary. i agree with your point about resisting arrest, but at the end of the day... what offence are you resisting arrest for?

Originally Posted by fatso

you don't think those are 'smug' comments? if not, then i guess i'm wrong.

by no means was the decision i cited meant to be the most recent or authoritative. i liked it 'cause of the summary. i agree with your point about resiting arrest, but at the end of the day... what offence are you resisting arrest for?

Oh my. Are we going to dissect and bold particular passages in posts to prove a point?

Call it whatever you want I guess. I think my position is quite clear.

[HelloHockeyFans]

At about 2:47, it looks like the guy actually reaches out with his right hand to grab the officer... you can't see what it is, but when the officer backs off, you see his gun there... and it's also the same time that officer decides to take out his taser... is reaching in the vicinity of an officer's gun grounds for getting tasered?

Or should they have given him some more time to think about putting his clothes on?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by blankall

Maybe it was chilly out there?

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

At about 2:47, it looks like the guy actually reaches out with his right hand to grab the officer... you can't see what it is, but when the officer backs off, you see his gun there... and it's also the same time that officer decides to take out his taser... is reaching in the vicinity of an officer's gun grounds for getting tasered?

Or should they have given him some more time to think about putting his clothes on?

Really...I'm pretty sure anything is grounds to get tasered....its not lethal so fire away, right?

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

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.

Wizard got exactly what he deserved.

If I have a tazer and a guy is trying to rip off my wang, I'm tazing him. Even if I'm not a cop, I'm pretty sure a self-defense plea for my junk would be good cause... (now why I'd have a tazer to start with is a totally different question )

[MelBridgeman]

I suppose they could of shot him or beat him silly

[pope04]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

What the hell happened to that guys nose??
He looks like Michael Jackson.

Watch all of dissentowner's posted vid. It'll make sense.

[Joborule]

I'm extremely disappointed in CP that this hasn't been said...

Let me take off my robe and wizard hat