Officers "should have used a taser."

Soho gator said:

Not surprised to hear you never worked in impoverished communities. Your dripping disdain now comes in to focus.

Click to expand...

Do you understand why impoverished communities have difficult times with cops?

Common disingenuous debate tactic: If you don't like a particular point-of-view, just point out that it's not 100% perfect, and as not perfect should be discarded as not worthy. Might be 99%, but that doesn't matter, if it's not 100%...

Meanwhile, the stuff you do like isn't 100% either, but it's stuff you like and we shouldn't talk about that because it's not the topic at hand.

:roll:

Generic comment, applies to pretty much any debate topic.

radcen said:

Common disingenuous debate tactic: If you don't like a particular point-of-view, just point out that it's not 100% perfect, and as not perfect should be discarded as not worthy. Might be 99%, but that doesn't matter, if it's not 100%...

Meanwhile, the stuff you do like isn't 100% either, but it's stuff you like and we shouldn't talk about that because it's not the topic at hand.

:roll:

Generic comment, applies to pretty much any debate topic.

Click to expand...

Another common tactic is to completely go off base because you realize you have no refutation to something positive that you want to react negatively too. Do you or do you NOT agree that tasers are not 100% effective?

As demonstrated by the video, they are not. And when the topic comes up on arm chair quarterbacking an officer, when of the lovely statements you hear is that he should have used a taser (see mike brown). Are you going to trust your LIFE to a taser when it is just you? **** NO!

So please give me more generic comments that don't apply to the topic please.

MickeyW said:

King was an absolute worthless POS. That is not hate speech...that is an honest fact!

Not that I have ever seen. Are you out their being picked on by the Po-Po?

The Rodney King incident was the first that I had ever witnessed as a cop, while watching it on TV. Nothing like that has ever been done in my presence or on either department I worked for....

Of course...........................there might be a good reason for that. I worked in an upscale community in NorCal, where people were decent citizens and scumbags like King, were far and few between and came from places like East Palo Alto. Here in my part of Oregon, the community has no gangs, few Blacks(like .000001% of the population), few Hispanics and some Asians. Most people are friendly and the few that do get into trouble are White dopers or outsiders. We ap arrest a lot of Mexicans running drugs, between LA and Seattle. Our K-9s stay real busy.

Click to expand...

You know I heard there is footage that isn't usually seen when discussing Rodney King. Is that something you have heard?

MickeyW said:

In the old days, we didn't have the massive drug problem that we have today....

Click to expand...

Which "old days"? The 1950s? Drugs like speed and heroin have been around since the 1960s. The crack epidemic in the late 80s and early 90s was much worse than anything we see today. Crime rates have also fallen dramatically since the early 1990s.

What's different is that we're more open about it today than in the past, and the media is covering it better.

In addition, just because some people are extremely difficult to incapacitate does not justify police using overwhelming force the instant they come into contact with someone. We don't want police to react in a way that jeopardizes their own safety, but we also don't want maximum force to be the default.

Officers "should have used a taser."

Visbek said:

Which "old days"? The 1950s? Drugs like speed and heroin have been around since the 1960s. The crack epidemic in the late 80s and early 90s was much worse than anything we see today. Crime rates have also fallen dramatically since the early 1990s.

What's different is that we're more open about it today than in the past, and the media is covering it better.

In addition, just because some people are extremely difficult to incapacitate does not justify police using overwhelming force the instant they come into contact with someone. We don't want police to react in a way that jeopardizes their own safety, but we also don't want maximum force to be the default.

Click to expand...

Police aren't using maximum force 99.9% of the time. Hell even when they use lethal force a higher majority are still not using the largest caliber weapons they have. But as you said there is a lot more media coverage so you have people coming on here treating it as if that is what cops do every single time they come into action

stonewall50 said:

What a completely OFF TOPIC rant.

Click to expand...

Meaning what, the only on topic comments are those which agree with you?

The entire point of the thread is to highlight the only relevant comment you had: tasers aren't 100% effective and just because an arm chair quarterback thinks that it is a good idea, doesn't mean it actually is.

Click to expand...

His comments were entirely appropriate. He recognized that tasers aren't 100% effective, and pointed out good alternatives, including better methods of police approaches to potentially violent suspects.

Like...say...when rushed by a crack addict out of his mind who has a knife or other weapon and it is 1 on 1.

Click to expand...

1989 called, and wants its crack epidemic back

And of course your side loves to focus on those "what ifs" and ignore the human aspect of law enforcement. Yea there is due process. There is also the fact that that officer deserves to go home to his family, and he deserves to do it without being riddled with hep c or AIDS. It is a dirty job. And it is violent. And most people aren't capable of understanding violence. Period.

Click to expand...

It's also a less dangerous job than roofing, driving a taxi, mining, logging, and numerous other professions. Policing isn't in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.

I for one don't think there are "sides" here. One can support the police, not want them to unnecessarily risk their lives, and want them to do a good job, while still criticizing improper police methods, pointing out systemic flaws that protects bad cops, and push them to find less violent ways to do their job.

Further, lionizing police for doing a difficult job does not excuse them from all accountability, or moral assessment of their performance, or give them carte blanche to do their job with as much violence as they want.

You also seem to have a habit of showing one-off videos, and suggesting that your conclusions from single incidents is the end-all and be-all of proper police procedure. Ultimately, that doesn't work. All it does is present a single anecdotal and manipulatively emotional scenario, which happens to suit your points -- which seems to be "let the cops do whatever they want." There's no recognition of emotional reactions by the police, there's no question of accountability, no recognition that police do not work in a social vacuum.

Dude must have never seen the French connection. Of course he was too scared to work in impoverished communities.

Wait a second is there a stat on how many cops get hep c or AIDS on the job? I'd like to see it.

LOL

Soho gator said:

Wait a second is there a stat on how many cops get hep c or AIDS on the job? I'd like to see it.

LOL

Click to expand...

The Biological Risks of Being a Law Enforcement Officer | Officer.com

Officers are at a greater risk to these than the general public. So are firefighters and Paramedics. Any job that involves high contact with the public and BLOOD will do that. The above quoted article listed does a good job discussing that, and while aids is "low risk," I'm noticing that it is common for officers to be at a higher risk than others. Almost like they deal with dirty people ALL DAY.

stonewall50 said:

The Biological Risks of Being a Law Enforcement Officer | Officer.com

Officers are at a greater risk to these than the general public. So are firefighters and Paramedics. Any job that involves high contact with the public and BLOOD will do that. The above quoted article listed does a good job discussing that, and while aids is "low risk," I'm noticing that it is common for officers to be at a higher risk than others. Almost like they deal with dirty people ALL DAY.

Click to expand...

So in other words there are no stats.