Political Crossfire Forums

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

micfranklin wrote:

If you do either long and hard enough, you can kill somebody. And if this helps, you could just hit him once and do what they do on Cops and sit on him and then cuff him.

what if he pulled a gun when they approached him? what if he pulled a knife? what if he swung at the officer?

you don't know what he was going to do, therefor you use the least contact possible.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

If you do either long and hard enough, you can kill somebody. And if this helps, you could just hit him once and do what they do on Cops and sit on him and then cuff him.

what if he pulled a gun when they approached him? what if he pulled a knife? what if he swung at the officer?

you don't know what he was going to do, therefor you use the least contact possible.

There's always pepper spray.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

micfranklin wrote:

There's always pepper spray.

pepper spray against a gun or a knife?

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:18 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

There's always pepper spray.

pepper spray against a gun or a knife?

Let's get one thing straight. It didn't say anywhere that this guy had any weapons on him. But if he did, there is the possibility that the cops in the room could've called and then some other cops would've come and then proceeded to pepper spray him.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

micfranklin wrote:

Let's get one thing straight. It didn't say anywhere that this guy had any weapons on him.

you can't argue with hindsight. it's totally irrelevant in regards to the perspective of the officers.

micfranklin wrote:
But if he did, there is the possibility that the cops in the room could've called and then some other cops would've come and then proceeded to pepper spray him.

so they call in and wait while this person possibly harms the officers, students, or himself?

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:

Let's get one thing straight. It didn't say anywhere that this guy had any weapons on him.

you can't argue with hindsight. it's totally irrelevant in regards to the perspective of the officers.

micfranklin wrote:
But if he did, there is the possibility that the cops in the room could've called and then some other cops would've come and then proceeded to pepper spray him.

so they call in and wait while this person possibly harms the officers, students, or himself?

Okay, let me simplify myself. The kid was being disruptive and refusing to cooperate with the cops. Do I think they had to get him out of there? Yes. But I don't think they had to taser him to do it.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

micfranklin wrote:
Okay, let me simplify myself. The kid was being disruptive and refusing to cooperate with the cops. Do I think they had to get him out of there? Yes. But I don't think they had to taser him to do it.

he became combative. they didn't know what he was capable of. they took the safest course at the time.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:
Okay, let me simplify myself. The kid was being disruptive and refusing to cooperate with the cops. Do I think they had to get him out of there? Yes. But I don't think they had to taser him to do it.

he became combative. they didn't know what he was capable of. they took the safest course at the time.

But they didn't have to taser him multiple times, according to the article.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

micfranklin wrote:
But they didn't have to taser him multiple times, according to the article.

if he wasn't neutralized the first time they would have to do it again.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: micfranklin wrote:
But they didn't have to taser him multiple times, according to the article.

if he wasn't neutralized the first time they would have to do it again.

Did I not say that doing that multiple times could kill him?

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

micfranklin wrote:

Did I not say that doing that multiple times could kill him?

so can't beating him multiple times and shooting him.

it's safe to assume a taser is more safe.

Vexillum · Joined: 12 Nov 2006 Posts: 466

If you think an officer is violating your rights, you still cooperate, seek redress later. Else, you're an idiot.

These videos tend to be unfair to cops because they don't catch the criminal's behavior that led up to the use of force by police. But, just from what is in the video, that punk needs some criminal charges brought against him. He deliberately created a public disturbance before he was tasered. He refused to cooperate with reasonable instructions before he was tasered.

Considering his behavior, he created a situation where a reasonable cop might feel the need to use a taser.

GOPusha · Joined: 16 Nov 2006 Posts: 2

The police in this situation didn't ask the kid to cut his foot off, they simply asked him to leave the library because he did not have the proper ID, we must expect our citizens to obey the commands of our law enforcement for our safety to endure... thus we must not allow students to blatantly disobey our police and make a public scene of it... especially if the police are totally right in what they ask of this man.

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2665

so the rule was no one but students after 11?

if that is true, then when he refused to give i.d. or information to the police officers he was in fact trespassing so yes they had the right to remove him, he was blocked, yet why? that was not shown, probably a reason, a good one? im not sure

fact is trespassing is a crime, and well it has nothing to do with the patriot act this would have happened before the patriot act

why does everybody blame the patriot act on dumb ass people who dont do as the police or whoever ask of them? would it have killed the kid to leave peacibly knowing he was in the wrong?

and as another note did the police, or any one else for that matter never push the limits, and / or abuse power before the patriot act? come on people get a life get the facts straight, and take a hard look at life, do not balme all of lifes little problems on one law you disagree with, maybe just maybe someone other than the legal system is messed up

JohnnyQ · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 1316 Location: somewhere

The Comrade wrote: two things that you don't do with police:

A)act like a smart ass
B)act like you're superior

if you don't either of those(like this f**k nut did) you don't get in trouble.

You can act as a smart ass if you please. The cops still have no right.

You can act superior to an officer if you want to. We the People put that officer there to begin with. We the People have a right not to show ID.

What the cops did was absolutely disgusting and pissed me the f**k off.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 12:35 am Post subject:

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:

I don't know, in the majority of times the cops put them on the ground and cuff them. It gets the job done just as well, so obviously it works, and the taser wasn't needed, unless this guy was some 400 pound musclebound monster.

the kid had no ID and there was no way to prove he wasn't dangerous. the cops made the safest choice.

Not really. Shooting him in the head would have been the "safest" choice. Then he would have been no threat whatsoever. I've never in my life seen a cop use a tazer. But I've seen hundreds arrested. If it's good enough for the hundreds of other identical scenarios, there is no reason it wouldn't be good enough for this one.

Judas · Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 13

The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote:

I don't know, in the majority of times the cops put them on the ground and cuff them. It gets the job done just as well, so obviously it works, and the taser wasn't needed, unless this guy was some 400 pound musclebound monster.

the kid had no ID and there was no way to prove he wasn't dangerous. the cops made the safest choice.

Not really. Shooting him in the head would have been the "safest" choice. Then he would have been no threat whatsoever. I've never in my life seen a cop use a tazer. But I've seen hundreds arrested. If it's good enough for the hundreds of other identical scenarios, there is no reason it wouldn't be good enough for this one.

I agree, the officers stepped way over the line. The odd thing is that he even with all the yelling and protest, he was leaving, and in fact, was walking out the door when he was stopped. I wonder if his ethnicity had anything to do with the officers trying to detain him instead of letting him walk out without incident. I'm sure his lawyer will ask the same question during the law suit.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

yanniv wrote:

You can act as a smart ass if you please. The cops still have no right.

You can act superior to an officer if you want to. We the People put that officer there to begin with. We the People have a right not to show ID.

if a cop asks for your ID and you're on private property after hours, you do not have the right to become combative with the cop. this false delusion of yours goes to show how out of touch americans are with the law.

yanniv wrote: What the cops did was absolutely disgusting and pissed me the f**k off.

they tasered a combative person who had no ID, and was trespassing on private property. the person chose the hard way, and the police made the right decision.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 14795 Location: Florida

Marzelvane wrote: and in reply to a taser not being a lethal weapon. I think its time to consider this weapon lethal. You can DEFINATELY kill someone with a taser (and yes, you can kill someone with a spoon)...but how about this analogy.

I come out with a new type of handgun and say "this handgun is designed to ONLY shoot people in the leg. This is not a lethal handgun, as shooting people in the leg is not considered lethal."

Actually shooting people with a gun is considered lethal. A leg shot that hits the femoral artery (artery that goes down the back of your thigh) is usually lethal.

Marzelvane wrote: Well now....isnt that stupid? The gun could be aimed wrong or the user could purposely use it incorrectly and shoot somebody in the stomach or chest. It is TOO EASY to kill someone with a taser and they should be considered lethal.

Here is a link to 167 US taser related deaths since 1999: http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html

Most of the taser-related deaths were really drug-related.

In the first 100 of your linked list (couldn't get the last 67 to show), 12 of the dead were mentally ill. 20 were of various causes (mostly related to pre-existing heart conditions (for example the 300 lb diabetic with a heart condition)). Two were suicides that ended up successful, and one was due to a fall and bumping their head. The other 65 were drug related, primarily cocaine or methamphetamine. I don't think those stats are all that bad.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 11448 Location: Zagreb

The Grandmaster wrote:
Not really. Shooting him in the head would have been the "safest" choice. Then he would have been no threat whatsoever. I've never in my life seen a cop use a tazer. But I've seen hundreds arrested. If it's good enough for the hundreds of other identical scenarios, there is no reason it wouldn't be good enough for this one.

you've seen hundreds of cases exactly the same as this?

i'm calling bulls**t on that one.

secondly, those officers you claim to have seen took a risk. these officers didn't. it's simple grandmaster.