ok, let me rephrase it a little to better match the video.
"give me your id"
"huh? why? what for?"
"GIVE ME YOUR ID!"
"what? this is ridiculous" *takes a few steps away*
ok... and - go! what's the appropriate response from the cop now? is it the taser?
Of course not, but if he then tells you why he is requesting your ID (ie you did something wrong) and you dont he then has a right to arrest you (ie put cuffs on you) no if you begin to become agressive or try and run away, then yes you deserve to be taserd.
I am not saying that the guy in the airport should have been tasered, as I do not know the whole situation, but if cops come up to me in a different country I just go with them with out causing a ruckess thats forsure. Doesnt matter where you are from COPS are COPS
about 50,000 volts and a fair bit of pain for the guy getting tasered
if the situation merits it - sure. a taser used when there is an obvious threat and a situation needs to be diffused NOW is ok in my books.
Who cares if there is a little bit of pain, if thats all you are worried about it should be a detertant to people disobeying officers. I bet that there are atleast as many injuries to people who are tackeled or "thrown on to a car" as there are from tasers. What percentage of arrests or agressive situations are resolved using tasers, guns, pepper spray, phyisical force, etc. I bet the numbers are high on the phyisical force side.
i dunno - i guess i'm done with this.... neither side is really gonna get anywhere in a meaningless internet debate.
some people want tasers to be only used when necessary.
others want tasers used when its the most convenient method of controlling someone.
different strokes for different folks. i guess it all comes down to which side of the gun you have more empathy for.
ok before i get jumped on by people who claim its a-ok cause that's the way they were trained - by the absolute letter of the police manual this may be 'ok' because he didn't immediately put his hands behind his back and instead tried to explain his situation to the cop but.... was this really necessary?
On the other end of the spectrum:
Last edited by Incinerator; 11-21-2007 at 09:23 PM.
What other way is there? If they don't listen to basic commands and start walking away or become even a little be aggressive are they supposed to beat them with a club? Shoot them? If you dont listen to cops sorry you deserve to be tasered (I am sure there are instances where there are over zealous). Cops are killed even in simple things as stopping someone over a traffic violation, tasering people who do not listen to commands seems like the best way to handle it to me.
Do you realize there was a time, very recently, when no police officers carried tasers, you know, before they were invented? Would the guy at the traffic stop get away no problem? No. Would he get shot? No. I guess there must be some other way.
In the case of the polish man, he has no idea of the rights in this country. So for anyone to judge what was going through his mind at the time, is absurd. Like a previous poster mentioned, maybe the police in his country act differently.
Thats not much of an excuse and just illustrates more how it is the victims fault that the situation happened. If I come from a place in which citizens kick the cops in the balls I can't just go around any country I please kicking them in the balls because police act differently. I would say in most places listening to and obeying the police is a decent way to act. Particularly when in a place like an airport. Even if there is a language barrier it was pretty clear, to me anyways, what the cops wanted in a general sense and this idiot certainly did not react even close to that.
He may not have known the rights, but a general rule of thumb that I tend to go by when travelling is that throwing computers and acting like a jackass in an airport usually isn't a right.
Do you realize there was a time, very recently, when no police officers carried tasers, you know, before they were invented? Would the guy at the traffic stop get away no problem? No. Would he get shot? No. I guess there must be some other way.
Man got around fine before cars too. Isn't technology grand?
Seriously, did anyone else catch this? I nearly fell out of my seat laughing. Paranoid much?
Nice quote on section 24. Just for the record, if you carry around a Charter of Rights that you wrote yourself and edited the way you saw fit, it doesn't really count.
However, you are correct, if you have committed no offense, you do not have to produce or provide any form of identification. The kicker is, it doesn't matter if you think you haven't done anything, everyone says that. I would recommend if a) you have nothing to hide b) wish to assist in an investigation, just produce some ID. No it's not a police state, no its not a conspiracy, its just what a reasonable person would do.
I won't touch on the taser thing again as it seems to be going around in circles.
I only provided an except from the charter, as there is no reason to list the whole section of 24. If you have ever read that actual section of the charter, you would clearly see the editing did not change the actual rights of the charter(which is obvious you haven't if you feel it was edited to where i saw fit).
A reasonable person whom has never been profiled or subjected to certain tactics of police may just comply. Paranoid, isn't the right word to describe, but aware of my rights. However, I have had my share of profiling from law enforcement in my past that made myself more knowledgeable which some aspects, so I can enjoy my own personal time free of inquiries and useless questioning.
If I am walking my dog in the middle of the night and a cop approaches me(has happened on a few occasions), in no way am I going to comply with every single useless question. I am going to go on my way and continue to do what I am doing.
It's an Alberta Provincial Court decision from 2003. The accused was being questioned by a CPS officer with respect to a possible jaywalking violation. The accused refused to provide his name and was charged with obstruction under the Criminal Code. The case talks about the elements of the charge of obstruction and deals a bit with the obligation to identify oneself to a police officer.
I only provided an except from the charter, as there is no reason to list the whole section of 24. If you have ever read that actual section of the charter, you would clearly see the editing did not change the actual rights of the charter(which is obvious you haven't if you feel it was edited to where i saw fit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by P. Trudeau
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Section 24 is the section generally referred to when a person is seeking a remedy for a charter breach. For example, let's say the police stop you on your way to pick up a hooker and find all your blow in your duffle bag. If the court finds that there was a violation of your section 8 right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, then you can ask that the evidence obtained in violation of your rights be excluded under section 24.
Pepper spray is another good one, I actually dont know why it isnt used very often? Anyone know?
Pepper spray isn't always used because it isn't 100%, there is a big risk of cross contamination (i.e. getting it in your eyes or other people around you), as well, unless it is administered with great efficiency (i.e. full on blast to the face), it will usually just make the person madder than they already are. How many people do you would willingly take a full jolt of pepper spray to the face? Not many. Most will put their hands up and move their head around to avoid getting hit in the face with it.
If I am walking my dog in the middle of the night and a cop approaches me(has happened on a few occasions), in no way am I going to comply with every single useless question. I am going to go on my way and continue to do what I am doing.
Your time is so valuable that you can't tell the cop your name and that you taking your dog for a walk?
I would think that by refusing to answer the cops reasonable questions that you would end up with way more trouble and way more time based on the fact that the cop would (and should) have plenty of suspicions of you and would want to question/investigate you further.
Carrying around the charter like you supposedly do is one of the most ridiculous/stupid/useless things I have heard of but if it makes you feel better about yourself I guess you should keep on doing it. Not sure it will help you when you are a jerk with the cops but perhaps when they are wrestling you to the ground while you quote whichever section you feel like making up at the time it will help cushion the fall.
I only provided an except from the charter, as there is no reason to list the whole section of 24. If you have ever read that actual section of the charter, you would clearly see the editing did not change the actual rights of the charter(which is obvious you haven't if you feel it was edited to where i saw fit).
A reasonable person whom has never been profiled or subjected to certain tactics of police may just comply. Paranoid, isn't the right word to describe, but aware of my rights. However, I have had my share of profiling from law enforcement in my past that made myself more knowledgeable which some aspects, so I can enjoy my own personal time free of inquiries and useless questioning.
If I am walking my dog in the middle of the night and a cop approaches me(has happened on a few occasions), in no way am I going to comply with every single useless question. I am going to go on my way and continue to do what I am doing.
I am very clear on the meaning of the charter. What you have quoted is not section 24- and I can't honestly think of what section you are referring to. Sections 7 and 9 and possibly 8 could possibly be applied to your little scenario. Either way, it appears you have written your own charter... grats I guess.
Useless questioning? It's how crimes get solved my friend. Imagine if everyone had your attitude- witnesses included. I am sure your tune would change if you witnessed something criminal happen to a loved one- I don't think you would be trumpeting your 'f-u, I don't have to tell you nuthin' horn.
It's quite clear you have some serious issues with police. I would guess you have a substantial criminal record.
Edit: I forgot to mention, OC spray. Although it can be affective, it has some severe limitations including immunities, inability to stop motivated suspects, cross contamination (already mentioned), and it still includes an elemental of physical control that could cause more injury to suspect, police and bystanders. Overall, the taser is much more effective.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 11-22-2007 at 01:11 PM.
You would think considering a taser is just electricity that if was to kill you..you would just die right after the shock...but that hasnt been the case in most incidents in fact all of them...anyone argue the above statement...should a death attributed to a taser take 30 hrs like this case? The man at the airport still continued to struggle with police after he was tasered....Clearly there is something people are missing here..
Are you kidding me? According to that article there were not 1 but TWO violent confrontations. And the guy tried to flee and jumped the counter. Notice that after he got tasered, he got up and kept running.
God, I swear, to some of you people the only justice is to see a cop beaten senseless or even killed by thugs because he/she wasn't allowed to defend themselves.
Notice that after he got tasered, he got up and kept running.
Something I mentioned earlier in this painful thread- taser are effective as long as they are cycling. For hardened criminals that are highly motivated, they can easily continue on their way after being tased.
Are you kidding me? According to that article there were not 1 but TWO violent confrontations. And the guy tried to flee and jumped the counter. Notice that after he got tasered, he got up and kept running.
God, I swear, to some of you people the only justice is to see a cop beaten senseless or even killed by thugs because he/she wasn't allowed to defend themselves.
Whoa Whoa. Why are you jumping all over him? Settle down. The poster never made any opinions either way, he simply posted the article that relates to the topic at hand. Which is a man dieing because he was tasered.
