Man tasered 19 times, dies.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pietro Beretta said:
"thugs in the hood"

Is sounding very stereotypical.

This sounds like all "thugs" are criminals and all criminals live in the "hood"
Click to expand...

Maybe i missed some linguistic drift here, but last time i checked the very definition of the word "thug" was a criminal. In fact, according to every dictionary I have access to, this is the actual definition. And frankly, im pretty sure that all criminals who are not in prison do live somewhere that could be defined as a neighborhood. SO yeah, all thugs are criminals, and all criminals live in "the hood".
 
Pietro ~

Apparently you're using a definition of "thug" that I have never heard.

pax
 
From Dictionary.com

Thug
n.
1: A cutthroat or ruffian; a hoodlum.

2:also Thug One of a band of professional assassins formerly active in northern India who worshiped Kali and offered their victims to her.

Yes, thug in its "original" term is a criminal.

hood or 'hood
n. Slang
A neighborhood, usually in the inner city.


hood·lum
n. Slang
A gangster; a thug. <-----
A tough, often aggressive or violent youth.

There is also something called "Thug Life" Wich refers to "inner city gangsters way of life"
See where confusion can set in..........



I guess they could be refering to the "Bugsy malone" type of gangster....
 
*Wheeeee....* (That's the sound of comprehension whistling past someone's ears!)

Pietro, I am still missing your point. "Thug," "hoodlum," and "gangster" are all solid synonyms for criminal: someone who breaks the law, often by assaulting other people, and who may or may not have yet been arrested for it.

A "tough, aggressive, violent youth" surely sounds criminal to me. I just cruised through a half dozen dictionary sites and it seems to me that no matter how you slice the word "thug," it certainly does not have overtones of law-abiding.

As for "an inner-city gangster's way of life," are you trying to tell me that a gangster's lifestyle isn't generally criminal? Your own comments were pretty terse and I can't tell from them whether that is what you meant or not.

I'm still failing to see what was so upsetting about what I said. Please forgive me for being dense; you're going to have to spell it out a little more plainly.

pax
 
He was on MJ and LSD. An excellent chance he could not have complied with instructions or much less understood them. Tazering to get someone to comply with verbal orders assumes that they can hear, understand, and then act rationally on the orders. I have seen persons drunk, high, stoned etc. as an ER doc. These persons are so out of it that they are mentally unable to act rationally. Tazering an out of control person to subdue them shouldn't take 19 shots, but would certainly take several. If they are out of control and need to be subdued, there is a good chance they will get hurt.
 
Moving back from Mas Ayoob's self-serving article and back to the case at hand, we have here a young man who underwent two rather significant physical events: (1) He infused apparently rather high doses of some extra-legal substances; and (2) shortly thereafter, and while still under the influence of those substances, he was tasered ... 19 times.

Two days later he died.

Yes, he died AFTER he was tasered, not when he was tasered. But ... he also died AFTER he had taken the drugs, not while he was at the peak of his high. Ergo, if it is logical to discount the taser and rule that the kid died solely because of the drugs, it is equally logical to discount the drugs and rule that he died solely because of the taser strikes.

In reality, he (as well as a number of other taser subjects) more than likely died as a result of the combination of drugs and taser. What's wrong with acknowledging that?
 
Question: Did he take the drugs of his own volition or were they forced onto him? It makes a big difference if I drink a fith of Jack Daniels and then go out into the night and smack some guy or gal in the snoot OR if somebody held me down and forced the JD down my throat using a funnel and a rubber hose. If the latter is the case I'm just flat not responsible but if the former is the case then I've pretty much stripped from myself any consideration from the first LEO on the scene who can plainly see that I'm drunk as hell and twice as obnoxious. If I'm too smashed to understand his commands and get my ass Tazered 19 times then when I sober up I'd better kick myself in the butt 'cuz I was the guy who got me into that jam. Hey folks, when you get yourself all jacked up on some chemical and then do something that brings on the law you are going to get wrestled, pepper sprayed, Tazered, or shot by an LEO. It ain't complicated. Its like the man said, life is tough, its tougher if your're stupid.
 
El Rojo said:
If you don't resist, it is awfully hard for a cop to justify beating you. Some how in my 28 years I have manged to avoid any negative incidents with law enforcement. Does that mean I am a gutless sheeple who just subjects myself to the tyranny of oppression? Or does that mean I just act rationally around law enforcement? :scrutiny:
Click to expand...


Sometimes there isn't much difference between the two.
 
Is taser use "safe"? Particularly, is it "safe" for the arrestee? Compared to all other methods the officer may use to gain compliance from an arrestee who is determined to fight, yes it is. Any force at all is more dangerous than simply talking, but once you're past the talking stage, the taser is just about the safest tool in the box. The reason folks keep "mocking" those who ask the question is because no one is listening to the answers! The answer is simply, "Yes. Taser use is safer than allowing a disturbed and possibly violent person to go free. It is safer than slamming that person into the pavement by nearly breaking his arm. It is safer than beating on him with a stick. And (statistically and experimentally) it is both safer and more pleasant for the subject than using OC."
Click to expand...

+1

Aquestion please, how many of the posters who are objecting to the use of the taser on people who do not do what the police order you to do have first hand experience in enforcing compliance on an adult ? and the aftermath in the ER (frequently with the damage to both sides) ? Look up the death rates from people being killed by suffocation while being arrestted not from neck holds but from the weight of people piled on top of them to attempt to control them. This is NOT high shool roughhousing, there are no rules and some people will fight to the death.

I am not a LEO never have been. I do work in hospitals and have worked ER and Psych as well as having worked at a bouncer in a Chi. "New Wave" bar. Not bragging just stating my qualifications.

As for when to use it set dept guidelines, punish those who do not folow them, modify them if the community feels it needed by electing new officials. But until them what was the officer supposed to day ? do you want the officer to stand by talking for a full 8 hour shift and then to have his replacement sent to continue ? follow the person around until they decide to come to the police station with the officer?

At some point when people do not follow society's rules physical pain will result. No amount of arguing, debating, or rationalizing is going to change that.

So far from the evidence available to me ( http://www.cprc.org/tr/tr-2006-01.pdf I hope the link works ) TASERs are the best choice available ( or at least until the invent a phaser with a stun setting :p *) .

When people refuse to obey a LEO they very frequently get hurt. That is a fact of life.

Kevlar on ? Check.
Nomex on ? Check

Let the flames begin.

NukemJim

* In the Star Trek Universe too large of a "stun" setting on a phaser can kill. :evil:
 
Badge of Courage or Badge of Cowardice?!

I've seen too many donut-dunkin', coffee-swillin' cowardice wanna-be cops who joined to be "the-big-man-barkin'-orders".

I continue to say we need to have the following for ALL wanna-be-cops:

1) Complete psychological AND neuropsychological work-up (about 50 clock hours testing).

2) Must pass both a "brain-scan polygraph" and "traditional polygraph" to detect lies and racial and other prejudices. ANY perceived deception--you are OUT! Period!

3) Required to have attained the minimal rank of 2nd degree Black Belt in at least two styles of martial arts: first one "hard-style" and second one "soft-style"...(TaeKwonDo & Judo) or other similar.

4) Minimum of a Bachelor's degree, attaining a minimum of 95% with PASS/FAIL on a set of specific exit examinations.

5) Must agree to have their "person" audio & video tape-recorded every minute they are on the job. On-board camera and audio inside looking at them. Allows for on-going psychological assessment. Better determine when cops' reactions on the way to the call are indicative of a cop-on-the edge. Time for paid vacation for a week.

I'd say the jokers would leave the force and let the real cops, who really respect the people they serve to do their duty. The money saved from less lawsuits would permit us to at least DOUBLE their wages and pay for better equipment which, as martial artists they would feel less need to abuse.

Doc2005
 
Doc, that is perhaps the sinlge dumbest thing I have ever read on the interweb.

Do you really want a mindless automaton as a police officer. Ever seen the movie "Soldier" with Kurt Russell? Sounds like the exact thing you want.

personally, Ive never been to college. I have some prejudices that Im not proud of, and a few that I dont mind having. I dont own a black belt, except for my Sam Browne, and dont plan on getting one. Dont have the time, with family and work, two things that actually are important.

I do have common sense, and the ability to defuse most situations. I also have the ability, whether it be with my hands, my baton, or my dreaded taser, to end most any situation.

I have worked with cops from all walks of life. I know guys with Master's Degress, and I know guys who have GEDs. Nine times out of ten, the guy with the GED is the guy I want backing me on a call. Its not that the guy with the masters isnt a good guy, nor a good cop, its that the guy with the GED has REAL WORLD experience.
 
patrol120 said:
Doc, that is perhaps the sinlge dumbest thing I have ever read on the interweb.

Do you really want a mindless automaton as a police officer. Ever seen the movie "Soldier" with Kurt Russell? Sounds like the exact thing you want.

personally, Ive never been to college. I have some prejudices that Im not proud of, and a few that I dont mind having. I dont own a black belt, except for my Sam Browne, and dont plan on getting one. Dont have the time, with family and work, two things that actually are important.

I do have common sense, and the ability to defuse most situations. I also have the ability, whether it be with my hands, my baton, or my dreaded taser, to end most any situation.

I have worked with cops from all walks of life. I know guys with Master's Degress, and I know guys who have GEDs. Nine times out of ten, the guy with the GED is the guy I want backing me on a call. Its not that the guy with the masters isnt a good guy, nor a good cop, its that the guy with the GED has REAL WORLD experience.
Click to expand...

Amen, P120. Amen.
 
2) Must pass both a "brain-scan polygraph" and "traditional polygraph" to detect lies and racial and other prejudices. ANY perceived deception--you are OUT! Period!
Click to expand...
Polygraphs are not admissable as evidence in a court of law because they are not reliable. In the hands of a really skilled operator, the error rate is at least 10%.

pax
 
I wasn't there but

I'm guessing that he was tazered 19 times because he kept on resisting arrest. If he had stopped after 1 taz that would have been it. Its really simple. Everyone can do it. If you don't want to get hurt resisting arrest, DON"T! (resist) You're not going to win so why bother. I just don't understand. If the officer has decided it time for the cuffs, thats it, game over. Go downtown and explain it to the Judge. You may be right and the officer wrong but fighting is only going to make it worse.
 
Aquestion please, how many of the posters who are objecting to the use of the taser on people who do not do what the police order you to do have first hand experience in enforcing compliance on an adult ? and the aftermath in the ER (frequently with the damage to both sides) ? Look up the death rates from people being killed by suffocation while being arrestted not from neck holds but from the weight of people piled on top of them to attempt to control them. This is NOT high shool roughhousing, there are no rules and some people will fight to the death.
Click to expand...

Only the truly ignorant would think continued weakening of struggling is simply a sign of compliance when three large males are sitting on a persons torso.
 
Doc, you forgot to ask them supply a cape with that uniform....:D

"Astro Man",- A hand came down from heaven pinned a badge on his chest said "Get out there man and do your best." Jimi Hendrix.

12-34hom.
 
Patrol;
Must apologize on behalf of all who offend you. You seem like a really reasonable guy, and because of that your job must be doubly hard. Please don't take it personally if you read someone say something angrily about your occupation. More than likely they over-state the merits of their case, and there is no relevance to you anyway. It's just that a perceived injustice by authority is an emotional sort of burden that takes a long time to go away, and people might see you as an easy outlet for built up frustration. Pls don't take it personal, you really sound like nice guy.


Doc

"I've seen too many donut-dunkin', coffee-swillin' cowardice wanna-be cops who joined to be "the-big-man-barkin'-orders"."

I can understand why you might have some latent hostility, anyone who sees a family member abused, by someone in a position of authority never looks at that authority the same way again. Maybe you've been in a similar situation.

But you will get only negative results slinging mud, I gotta warn. The only thing you can do is keep slinging truth, keep illustrating that the 'new way' is not old, it is new. If it is not good, don't let people tell you it is good. Resist the obvious lies, but don't tell them yourself, and don't sling mud. My suggestions. Ironically, your standards probably aren't far from the truth. Know of people who got scores like 94% instead of 95% and didnt' pass the test, and they PAID hundreds of dollars for the priviledge of taking the test!


secamp32

"I'm guessing that he was tazered 19 times because he kept on resisting arrest. If he had stopped after 1 taz that would have been it. Its really simple. Everyone can do it. If you don't want to get hurt resisting arrest, DON"T! (resist) You're not going to win so why bother."

You need to provide evidence to support this. As far as I'm concerned it's a fairy tale people tell. And I have ample real-life video evidence simply in vaious posts on this board alone. You really won't sleep well the first night if you see too much evidence that contradicts your statement.

You are suggesting #1)Your are being beaten because you are resisting.

Your logic makes sense - if you stop resisting you stop getting beaten! Funny, then that people would resist like that???

So consider, hakems razor, a simpler explanation. They are not beaten because they resist - they are resisting because they are beaten. Think about it. They are being beaten, and they are resisting. You have been convinced that A led to B. I'm suggesting you consider that B can lead to A. Just sometimes, just once in a while, but consider it.

So your #2 suggestion that if you stop resisting, you stop getting hurt, doesn't have too much merit. There may be a lot of cases, where an agressive suspect merits agressive response. But there's also a lot of cases where a docile subject merits equally agressive resonse. And yet other cases where victimized subject receives agressive treatment. In the latter 2 cases you will get hurt, no matter what you do. All you can hope is to survive the encounter until they tire of hurting you. Resisting may allow you to take more damage and survive, than not-resisting.



And another statement you will be repeatedly told, until you believe it - you are told that non-compliance is justification for violent reaction. When one puts it in writing it looks absurd, but it is an accepted fact in today's reality.

I'll write it again: non-compliance is justification for violenct reaction.

This nice lady on this board here, Pax, she writes useful and polite and informative posts and I read them all the time. She's an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment, probably a good concerned citizen, all sort of nice things. But even she tells you that non-compliance is justification for violent response. Everyone will tell you this, but you have the god-given option not to believe them, to think indepentdently and see that it is wrong.

It's a tradition, it's a gray area, using violence to force people to comply. It's considered wrong, technically, but in practice it's accepted. But that doesn't make it right. Protesters staging a sit-in do not deserve to receive permanent debilitating injuries. People arguing speediing tickets do not deserve to be electrocuted, and tackled on the concrete in their own blood and saliva.

It's up to your own fundamental beliefs, your interpretation of the rights human beings have, and how much they can be waived for the sake of expediency. But I urge you to always lean towards preserving rights, and to hell with expediency, because it's usually just an excuse anyway.
 
Joejojoba, it really IS that simple.

If a person is about to be arrested, there are a few facts that must be understood.

Fact #1: The handcuffs ARE going to go on. Whether you like it or not, whether it is your personal preference or not. The cuffs are going on.

Fact #2: The second you start to resist, we will also start to resist HARDER. We will meet your resistance one level higher than you are using.

Fact #3: We don't fight fair. If there is one of you, hopefully there will be at least two of us. Maybe more.

Fact #4: Whether you believe it or not, we DO use the minimum force necessary. Here's an example of minimum force vs. maximum force used:

a. I tell you that you are under arrest. There is one other officer with me.
I tell you to put your hands behind your back, palms out. You say no.
(At this point, am I supposed to beg, plead or reason? Yeah, right.)
I grab one arm and attempt a compliance hold. You start to jerk your arm away.

I start to turn in an arm bar takedown; my partner steps in and trips you. You go to the pavement, and I put the cuffs on.

b. (Maximum Force)

a. I tell you that you are under arrest. There is one other officer with me.
I tell you to put your hands behind your back, palms out. You say no.
I grab one arm and attempt a compliance hold. You start to jerk your arm away.

I perform an arm trap, and smash you in the face with an elbow. While you are temporarily stunned, I follow up with a backfist, and immediately step to your front. Grabbing your collar in both hands, I perform osoto-gari (a hip throw), slamming you flat on your back on the pavement. The handcuffs are then applied. (After this ending, I then transport you to the hospital, where my supervisor is waiting. I am then relieved of both badge and gun, and placed under arrest for Assault, and suspended pending investigation.)

There is a third scenario.

a. I tell you that you are under arrest. There is one other officer with me.
I tell you to put your hands behind your back, palms out. You say no.
I grab one arm and attempt a compliance hold. You start to jerk your arm away.

I draw my Taser, and warn you to stop resisting. My partner attempts to place you in restraints. You jerk your arm away.

I deploy the Taser, and you collapse, stunned from the electrical charge. It is over in 5 seconds. My partner places you in restraints, and I warn you that if you fight or resist, I will use the Taser again. You get up and walk to the patrol car.

Which ending would you rather have?

By the way, Occam's razor does not apply here. Most people will submit when they learn they are about to be arrested.

Some won't.

WARNING: The link provided shows something that happened in real time, for real. This is what can happen.

It's graphic. It's not funny. And it is the side of society we face.

http://media.putfile.com/copkiller72220-5303
 
That really was disturbing, and I'd prefer not to discuss it. Only thing to say is that acting as that murderer represents civilians is equivalent to acting as police are represented by the officers beating Rodney King, and killing 'Negros' in Mississipi, and murdering the Black Panthers, and attacking fragile elderly ladies in New Orleans, and attacking civilians who witness them attacking other civilians in New Orleans, raping women in secluded traffic stops, and so-on.

In other words, not fair. But nor is life fair. Thus you would be wise to expect the worst. And you can then understand, that while you fear for officer safety, citizens may fear for citizen safety. Unfortunately, citizen safety, which is illustratedly a legitimate concern, is taken away, to make room for officer safety. A woman in handcuffs locked in the back of a cruiser is in an even worse position to defend herself against unwanted sexual advances. She is less safe. The officer is more safe.

As you can understand, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel of both respective populations, and IMO not representative of the wholes. But they are realities nonetheless. And you will never find an example of a country which granted more rights to their police at the expense of the rights of their citizens, and those rights did not become abused. In fact those rights are gravitational, and increase in a predictable fashion, in all foreign cases (post perestroika ComBloc nations excluded).
 
That really was disturbing, and I'd prefer not to discuss it. Only thing to say is that acting as that murderer represents civilians is equivalent to acting as police are represented by the officers beating Rodney King, and killing 'Negros' in Mississipi, and murdering the Black Panthers, and attacking fragile elderly ladies in New Orleans, and attacking civilians who witness them attacking other civilians in New Orleans, raping women in secluded traffic stops, and so-on.
Click to expand...

Agreed--10,000%!!

But, here's my point...

If you, as an officer, KNEW that the next person you stopped on a traffic stop would be courteous, somewhat amiable (given the circumstances), and owned up to the reason you conducted the stop, you would be well prepared to contact the driver in a like fashion.

If you, as an officer, KNEW that the next person you stopped would try their best to KILL you, you would also be well prepared, and would meet the threat accordingly.

If I, as an officer, know that the next person I contact under suspicious circumstances would peacefully come along (if I had probable cause to arrest), I could leave my equipment belt in the car, and just take a pair of handcuffs.

Of course, if I know the person is going Adam Henry on me, I'm loaded for bear.

The point in all this? I DON'T know how the next person is going to be.
NO ONE DOES.

And we don't know if the person will submit or fight. Sometimes, for no reason, as you saw. The Deputy was being at least polite. And, in the end, it cost him dearly.

So, for all of you folks that think that the Taser, or OC, or contacting someone with your guard up (always) is just a bit too much, and that we should be Officer Friendly at all times, I encourage you to watch the video that I linked to, above. Imagine reading some of the comments that have been posted in this and other postings about cops; then strapping on that equipment belt and having to face something like THAT. Can you visualize or feel the terror, the anguish, the pain in that video? That's the stuff we have to face the possibility of--EVERY DAY.

The beast is out there, folks. And we fight that beast, so that you won't have to. Sometimes we have to pay the price to fight that beast, too. And, the tab is usually collected in blood.

-------------------

In memory of Deputy K. Dinkheller.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top