Good Move Jolt him!
Bad Move He Caused No Harm!
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I already said that in this case the tazer was not appropriate. However the "why" doesn't matter if the suspect is physically threatening or assaulting officers and refusing to obey commands after an offense. Whether that offense be trespassing, robbery, or larceny of a 25 cent pack of bubble gum.Why always matters. The State has presumption of guilt. They initiate force, they are suspect, they need to answer. Why is very important. Though not to anything which was being said. My point there was to put in perspective the act of tazering the guy and the reason for it. It wasn't assault he got tazed for, so please try to be consistent and honest. It was trespassing.
Yeah, **** those guys.I can't stand when idiots can't read and the assume things which were not said so they can make a dumb ass rant about something which didn't exist. ****ing idiots.
If the risk of dying was so high, it would't be a requirement for law enforcement to be tazed themselves before they can use the device. And cities would be getting sued over a family member's "cop in training" dying from its use. Go look up some statistics that don't come from your paranoid anarchy blog websites on the tazer for more info, you know, learn something.
Until the tackle caused the kids arm go bend a strange way and then break when the large security guard's weight fully hit him. Then you'd be screaming about how these guards are so abusive. Its a lose-lose situation with paranoid anarchy folks.In the end this guy got tazed from trespassing when a simple tackle would have been more than sufficient.
There is zero need to tackle the scrawny kid and break his arm on accident.There is zero need for the tazer.
If you ask the kid if he'd rather have an appendage in a cast or have two little puncture holes on his back/chest. Which do you think he would choose?
You are missing the paranoia of Ikari thinking that if there is any freak risk of death to someone from its use than we cannot use it.
Starting immediately, we shall revoke any parent's privilege to have a TV weighing over 10 pounds because 25 infants per year get killed from a TV falling on them.
Yes, lets break an arm or leg trying to tackle someone.
Do some research on officer injuries involved in subjects resisting arrest. Its obvious you know nothing about it.
You always hear about the "poor kid" or the "poor suspect" and the injuries they received for being a ****ing moron and failing to comply with lawful orders, but the news media never tells you that the officer got injured.
And I disagree that there is no chance of death.
There is ALWAYS a chance of a freak occurrence that results in death...especially when two or more humans moving at run (or even walk) speed collide.
I refer to my previous post, with a few modifications:
The taser option has the potential to result in injury/pain for the person tasered. A small potential for death also exists.
The tackle option has not only the potential but the probability to result in injury/pain for both the person tackled and the person doing the tackling. A small potential for death also exists.
Thus, my take on it is that tasering someone is almost always going to be the better option.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
I dont think it was needed.Although there are lots of violent assholes id love to see tasered.
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.