More Tasering Action

Status
Not open for further replies.
Posted by Medula Oblongata
BY PULLING THEIR LIMBS OFF WITH HIS BARE HANDS!
Click to expand...

Is that actually humanly possible? I'm just curious, since you would have to exert a hell lot of force to do such thing.

I share the same sentiments with The Real Hawkeye concerning female cops. It just leads to bad things such as the court shooting when an immate wrestled the gun away from the female officer and shot her and 3? other people. Another situation comes to mind; it was on TV when some guy took down a female officer and would have taken her gun away if it wasn't that some ramdom guy ran in to help her while all she was able to do was scream: "help, help". Don't get me wrong, I believe girls can do pretty much everything that a guy does, sometimes even better, but being a cop or soldier is not one of those things.

O.K. back to subject. Was it justified to tase the guy? Well, you can't have an objective educated opinion from that news paper clipping. Now, we won't know for sure until they realease the video from the cruiser cam. Could they have done it better? Yes, she didn't need to tase him right away, she could have backed up some and give out a final warning and/or wait for her partner, its not like she was cornered and could not move.

(My opinion in general and not directed at this actual case) It don't matter if the guy was an a-hole or just plain rude, Yokozuna or whether he took a step or two in an aggressive manner towards the officer. There are procedures to follow. Anyways, there are techniques to bring down someone without the need for excessive force. And most importantly, WHERE WAS HER PARTNER IN THE WHOLE THING?

One quick question.... don't all police officers go through training for MMA or techniques to bring down or neutralize BG's?
 
One quick question.... don't all police officers go through training for MMA or techniques to bring down or neutralize BG's?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. In the academies I know of, there is also a phase called the "fight for life". You get on a "Red Man" suit, and go full on with one of the tac officers. It can be an eye opening experience.

One thing some of the folks here do not seem to realize is this: There is a VAST difference between a gym "fight", a friendly brawl, a kumite match and someone who really, truly wants to HURT you.

And the hardest part of all for most people to grasp is this: You do not have to be a strapping athlete to hurt someone. As someone else once said, "It ain't the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog."

We, as police officers share one thing regardless of jurisdiction, and that is that we are mandated to use the minimum force required to stop an assailant, or to effect lawful arrest.

Here's an interesting experiment, for those who want to try it. Pick two or three fairly big fellas. Now, pick one fairly skinny fella. Tell the big guys that their job is to restrain the little guy. Now, tell the little guy that his job is to avoid and resist being restrained, at all costs.

Give them one minute. I guarantee it won't be easy to restrain the little fella.

For some additional insight, you might want to check out: courttv.com

Click on the video link. Look for the video about the cop who pulls a guy over; the guy (a former prizefighter) comes boiling out of the car and attacks the cop. They are going at it for a LONG time.

Eventually, the officer pulls his sidearm, and shoots the perp at almost MUZZLE CONTACT RANGE. What did the perp do? He kept fighting!

An even better (or worse) example is the incident around here involving Deputy Richard Herzog, King County Sheriff's Department. Called to respond to calls of an individual causing a disturbance, he found a man, totally naked, confronting drivers in the middle of the street. When the deputy contacted the guy, the guy attacked.

The guy DESTROYED the deputy's holster getting his gun out of it. He then shot the deputy in the leg. As the deputy laid there, the perp ran up and shot the deputy four times--in the head.

There is a real difference between the ring, the dojo and the street. Believe it.
 
There should be a review of her actions by her department, as to why she imployed a taser instead of her firearm...:neener:
 
I'll wait to see the movie

I'll wait to see the movie. :D I can't say if it was or was not justified. Being that there was such a size difference does NOT cut it for me. Size can be off-set by training. She could have drawn a pistol, right? And he could have punched her, right? Let's wait to see the video.

Doc2005
 
The problem with 'seeing the video' is that as the suspect is a public figure the chances of us seeing the video is minimized. Sure, we might get lucky but it'll probably get buried with the casefile to "protect his privacy".

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
M.O.: I have read my article and many others on the subject, so quit repeating that over and over.

Apparantly, the reason the guy was pissed was because the officer ran into his car when she pulled him over (at least that is what I heard on the radio).

"Weary had drawn the officers' attention after acting suspiciously and "looking at (them) on several occasions"
Wow, I know that I have never looked at a cop that was driving near me. I sure wouldn't want to look at a cop or I might get tasered.

"When one officer asked Weary for his driver's license, Cannon said Weary became belligerent and asked why he had been stopped."
After a cop ran into my car pulling me over for no good reason, I would be upset also.

"He said the officer had to ask Weary for his license three times.

Cannon said Weary was "very agitated and was slow to comply," then he "starts reaching for something in the console."

Gee, could he have been reaching for his drivers license? I am sure if there was a G-U-N in that console, it would have made the story or a subsequent one.

"Cannon said Weary then started moving toward the officer, who pulled her Taser and fired it."

Wow, heaven forbid he walk towards a cop. There is no mention of him attacking the cops or attempting to. The only thing I read from this article was that he was pissed off (for some reason, which has now come out) and scary looking.

M.O., you are dead wrong about me having an axe to grind; I support the cops 99.999% of the time. I have worked in the county ER where they bring all of the "suspects" that are strung out on crack and fry, suddenly develop chest pain after getting caught, or get gang banged by the other gang, as well as the cops that get shot up protecting us, so I have a very good idea about what you guys go through.

It just seems to me that in this instance, the cops mistook a good guy for a scumbag and went a bit overboard. I have seen people that have gotten tasered, some that had no effect and some tha had a cardiac arrest. I think it is taken toolightly and is inappropriate to tase a guy for being a jerk.


PS: Thank you Mr. Roberts for editing my post, I got a little upset and thought I had deleted it before I posted. I apologize to M.O. for calling names.
 
Last edited:
Here's an interesting experiment, for those who want to try it. Pick two or three fairly big fellas. Now, pick one fairly skinny fella. Tell the big guys that their job is to restrain the little guy. Now, tell the little guy that his job is to avoid and resist being restrained, at all costs.
Click to expand...

Or even better yet, do the expirimet me and some buddies attempted a few weeks ago. Take a 58lb German Shorthair with porcupine quills in her muzzle, then take 4 guys and see if they can hold her still until until the quills are removed when she's not wanting you too. See how long you can hold her.

End result is that we took her to the vet.
 
Yes, perhaps if you take each "element" of the situation seperately, the hand slapping, the beligerance, the non compliance, the approaching, that is not enough to get tasered, but these things didn't happen in a vacuum, and they all happened together. Add them up, and they equal a tasing. Officers are not people that must forget the last 5 minutes of a situation. He was beligerent and hostile, he refused a request for his license, resisted arrest when they attempted to cuff him, and approached, walked towards, charged, whatever, the officer, and she defended herself. If some 300 pound person, who happens to be upset at you, starts mouthing off, then slaps someone away who tries to hold him back, turns towards you and starts approaching, would you not feel threatand. Yes, I know you have no taser, but would you feel threatand? I think we all know everyone would. She was, and she defended herself.

Now, assuming the guy was pissed for his car being hit, so what. Just because he has a valid reason to be pissed, doesn't give him carte blanch to what he wants. It also doesn't hchange the fact that he acted in a menacing manner. Do you really think the officer should haver thought to herself, hey, he is pissed cause of the car, he is no threat. Do you actually belive that sdomeone with a valid reason to be pissed at the cops isn't a threat just because it is a valid reason??

This case is clearly not problematic. Yes, I am sure some are, but noy this one.

Michael
 
If his car was hit, I think that changes the entire situation.

I would like to hear another version of events from someone else. This version is probably a bit loaded.
 
The problem with 'seeing the video' is that as the suspect is a public figure the chances of us seeing the video is minimized. Sure, we might get lucky but it'll probably get buried with the casefile to "protect his privacy".
Click to expand...

Or to cover up to protect the cops.....

Well imagine this, you're driving down a road and all of a sudden a cop car hits you. Would you not be pissed? Would you not demand the cop to tell you *** is the reason for all this?

Here's another question: How many of you ever been stopped and when you asked them what was wrong or what was the reason for being pulled over and all you get is "LICENSE AND REGISTRATION" over and over again? Are we not entitled to be informed? Especially after being hit by a cuiser?

Alot of police officers lack etiquette. Some are plain rude. They would get less hassle, smart *ss remarks or whatever if they were.... polite. Their job would be much easier: be cordial and you'll recieve in kind.... If a cop is rude to me, you're damn right I'll be rude to him.

Just a swipes of a hand away and a step towards an officer does not mean threat. Maybe he wanted to know what was going on and didn't like it when the cop put his hand on him. Yes, no cop should have to wait for their faces busted in to react. But this does not mean they can jump the gun whenever somone is rude or an @ss or because they raised their hands. You're a police officer and need to take that extra step. If a cop can't handle a little extra stress, then change occupation.
 
Alot of police officers lack etiquette. Some are plain rude. They would get less hassle, smart *ss remarks or whatever if they were.... polite. Their job would be much easier: be cordial and you'll recieve in kind.... If a cop is rude to me, you're damn right I'll be rude to him.
Click to expand...

I bet you get that a lot too...:neener:
 
Tough to say without video but sounds justified to me. A reasonable person might think he was advancing for a less than friendly reason. I wouldn't want to go hand-to-hand with an O-Lineman either if I had a choice.
 
No, you are not ENTITLED to be informed of why you are being pulled over. When you get your citation, then you will know why you were pulled over.

And this whole being hit by the cruiser, we have no idea what happend. Was his car hit when they attempted to pull him over. Did the officer have an accident after he pulled over, and the car got bumped. Was he bumped as a maneuver after he stopped to keep him from running (which I don't think is a good idea, but I guess it has been done in the past) Either way, just because that happens, doesn't now give the BG an excuse, right, or authority to disobey, push and officer, move his hands, and approach the female officer with impunity.

So what is they treated him like crap (they shouldn't) but that fact doesn't mean that everything after it was WRONG.

THe public has to control themselves, just like the cops have to control themselves. If you can't control yourself, then you suffer the consequences. The Athlete couldn't control himself, so he got tazed. If the officer couldn't control himself, then he/she sould get thiers.

Michael
 
Posted by wiredwrx
No, you are not ENTITLED to be informed of why you are being pulled over. When you get your citation, then you will know why you were pulled over.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ on this. Any LEO to settle this for us........
 
Alot of police officers lack etiquette. Some are plain rude. They would get less hassle, smart *ss remarks or whatever if they were.... polite. Their job would be much easier: be cordial and you'll recieve in kind.... If a cop is rude to me, you're damn right I'll be rude to him.
Click to expand...
This rude cop phenomenon is fairly recent. It stems from a growing cop culture which breeds the view that cops are our superiors, instead of our servants whose jobs depend on us non-criminal working types thinking they are doing an adequate job. Not so anymore, thus the attitude which you interpret as rudeness. It's not actually rudeness, per se, but the natural behavior of a superior towards an inferior.
 
I beg to differ on this. Any LEO to settle this for us........
Click to expand...

I'll try.

No, we do NOT have to tell you why you are being stopped. It is a courtesy.

Let me explain something about traffic stops....

When the blue lights come on, it means that we have observed something that constitutes an offense. That offense is usually classed as a misdemeanor, and it has occurred in our presence.

At that point, you have committed a crime. YOU CAN BE PLACED UNDER CUSTODIAL ARREST AT THAT POINT.

Let that sink in for a minute.

YOU CAN GO TO JAIL FOR A TRAFFIC OFFENSE.

Now, when we issue the citation, it means that you are receiving notification of the charges against you. They are noted on the citation.

Why do you have to sign the citation?

Because your signature is your PERSONAL RECOGNIZANCE BOND at that point. It says that you give your word that you will appear in Court, or pay a set fine.

In other words, YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR BAIL.

Let that one marinate for a while.

And, to another poster:

Just a swipes of a hand away and a step towards an officer does not mean threat.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. A swipe of the officer's hand does not mean threat.

Here in Washington State, it means that you have just committed Assault in the Third Degree, which is a Class C Felony. You will go to jail at that point. If I am the officer, the only choice you have at that time is whether you go to jail peacefully in the back of my patrol unit, or go in pain in the back of an ambulance. You WILL be arrested.

Pardon me for saying this, but I am tired of the monday morning quarterbacks saying how easy it is to stop someone peacefully, and that we need to be so kind, gentle and politically correct when dealing with people. In other words, you want a nation full of Officer Friendlies, who you saw in grade school.

You want to know where Officer Friendly is? He's laying in a ditch on the side of a road with his throat cut! His sister, Officer Politically Correct, got her brains blown out. You know why? BECAUSE THEY WERE NICE AND COURTEOUS TO THE WRONG PERSON.

Let the flames begin. I really don't care.:(
 
Well, there was a witness on TV about it last night that I missed who said they saw him with his hands on the car and then a second later was getting tasered. More to come...
 
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=4770760

11/16/06 - KTRK/HOUSTON) - An eyewitness is contradicting a court document detailing the arrest of Texans player Fred Weary. Police claim Weary was uncooperative to the point that an officer used a Taser on him. An eyewitness is claiming otherwise.

Weary was arrested for resisting arrest Tuesday on the northbound side of the West Loop at 59 after a traffic stop.

Two nights after we saw Weary get out of jail, an eyewitness is coming to his defense.

"He didn't seem to be putting up a fight," said the witness, who did not want to be identified.

The witness says he saw the end of the traffic stop. This is the beginning. After a big win on Sunday, Weary spent some of his off day Tuesday at Reliant Stadium. He had just left and was heading south on South Main when, according to a court document, two HPD officers were first drawn to his maroon Impala by "suspicious behavior". Specifically, it says he refused to pass them on the right side as traffic dictated.

Weary was watching them. The officers were then forced to come to a stop on South Main so that he would drive past them.

At that time, the document says the officers saw that Weary's vehicle did not have a front license plate. He passed the officers heading west on the South Loop service road. They saw him make an illegal lane change. He entered the freeway and so did they, following Weary for several more miles, finally pulling him over near a grassy area just south of the Southwest Freeway.

As they stood on the side of the freeway, the officers say Weary refused to give them his driver's license and was verbally combative. They ordered him out of his vehicle. That's when the eyewitness says he was driving by.

"His hands appeared to be on top of the car," he said. "If not on top, up against it raised shoulder high."

According to the eyewitness, Weary had his arms spread. The male officer was behind Weary, frisking him, and the female officer was four to five feet away.

In the court document, a direct contradiction. It read, "Officers ordered the suspect to place his hands on the vehicle, which he refused to do."

"I'm 99.9% sure they were on top of the car and raised shoulder high," said the witness. "The officer had no trouble frisking him."

The eyewitness looked away for a second and when he looked back...

"I could see his legs shaking on the ground. He had obviously been Tasered," he said. "It bothers you to see something like that."

The Houston Police Department says they still stand by the officer's account, but if anyone out there has a different version, they encourage that person to contact them.
 
Unfortunately this is a no win situtation for all parties. Based upon the story the officers had minimal reason to pull this man over. Yes he "may" have committed a traffic code violation. Or they just used it as an excuse to pull over a black man driving a car in the middle of the night. Like it or not many officers still "profile" to determine who gets pulled over and who doesn't. May not be allowed but it does happen. We all "profile" people we come across, usually its subconscious.

The player felt he was being singled out unjustly. He may well have been right in what he felt was a wrong being inflicted on him. However even if you are being wronged unless the officer attacks you without provocation, a very unlikely thing to happen, a citizen needs to comply with requests from an officer. You can kindly inform the officer that you feel he has singled you out illegally or violated your rights and you intend to pursue it via the legal system if you choose. This is your right, probably won't help you and can actually make the officer decide to "stick it to you" but feel free. Otherwise do as asked and if you like call your lawyer the next day. Better yet he could have called the media the next day and being who he was gotten a pretty sympathetic ear.

This gentleman however decided to play "who's got the biggest pair" with a couple of officers. A game almost guaranteed to end badly. Once this man
showed a willingness to disregard the officers they would logically consider him to be a threat. Lets face facts. Physical size is a major factor in evaluation of potential threats. To use a tazer against a man who was being physically uncooperative while being arrested is within the realm of appropriate use. Especially based on his size. Change the situation around and make the citizen a 100 pound women and the officers large men and the justification factors change. Things could have easily gone downhill and ended much worse for all involved.
 
Here in Illinois the officer is required to tell the reason for the stop immediately. They seldom do unless prompted. More and more when asked why he stopped you the reply is "Why do you think I stopped you?". Theoretically you can just leave if he won't tell you why. Realistically you'd be charged with lots of fabricated stuff.
 
Are you an officer who is stating that the rule in IL is that you MUST advise the person why you pulled him over, do you know of a law that you can cite that states they must inform, or are you just stating that because when you have been pulled over in IL, they have always stated the reason.

As for the NEW "EYEWITNESS" So, he saw all those things while passing them on the freeway at 60 miles an hour. Uh HUH. Right. So he watched all that instead of the road. He is 99.9 percent sure, but not 100 percent sure. Wel, did he see it, or didn't he see it. How can someone be 99.9 percent sure he saw something. I don't believe the "eyewitness" for anything.

Michael
 
The witness SAW the man's legs twitching, and KNEW that he had been tasered, huh?

As the man was standing next to a police car, right?

Horse crap. Pure horse crap.

But, rather than waste time on my own experience, take a look at the Taser website. Look at what happens when an athlete gets tasered. Then, someone tell me how the guy was even STANDING UP, much less keeping his hands on the car.
 
Is something right "just because I can"?

I'm going to debate a point with Powderman for a minute. The majority of the population are law abiding people. Let that sink in. There are more people outside jail than in. When you treat people with a little common courtesy, you'll get it back unless they are a genuine pill. Being courteous does not equal getting killed. Being unobservant, unprepared and unskilled makes you dead. Let that "marinate". Don't use some poor sap who got the short end of the stick to justify having little to no people skills. Who was it that stated "Be courteous, be professional, have a plan to kill everyone you meet." ? That's a proper attitude. Be prepared, but don't project a bad situation onto someone. You may get what you wish for, and that's bad even if you take home all the marbles.

In short, there are times when no tact and violence are the solution to a problem. When you take those out of context, though,you bring your problems on yourself. As far as him slapping the officers hands away, I'll agree with you. I'm going to sort that out in a courtroom. Going toe to toe with the police will get you hurt, possibly dead. Even if you are in the right. Back-up officers won't know what happened before they get there, you're just the nut who walloped their co-worker. Understandeable reaction.

In short, I find the prevalent attitude of posting officers on this thread to be "we'll treat you like %$#@ because we can." A little disturbing. Polite isn't a dirty word. And before someone pipes up with the "You don't know what it's like..." Can it. You don't know me or where I've been.
 
Cheer 1911 guy.

I agree totally with you. Its attitudes as you gently described that both give cops a bad name and tend to cause problems at some point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Football player that was Tasered has charges dismissed
Replies
18
Views
921
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
ESPN Mag article: FBI trains NFL "Texans" on firearms
Replies
6
Views
614
c_yeager
C
T
  • Locked
George W's War
Replies
8
Views
606
Justin
Justin
J
  • Locked
Another 12 year old tasered and update on recent incident.
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Azrael256
A
T
  • Locked
Police use Taser on pregnant woman
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
O.F.Fascist
O
Back
Top