• Looks like the media is trying to create another Trayvon story - Teen dies after being tasered
    267 replies, posted
^ the problem with the "where do you draw the line?" argument is that there is no line and that's not how the world works. The crime was over when the kid ran off. Then again, the cops have to make a quota. This is Justice Vs The Law. Cops obviously know when a crime is actually hurting someone. This is real life, people can actually detect when shit [I]actually is[/I] going wrong. Hell, people that aren't good at that particular skill shouldn't be fucking cops. [QUOTE=Zeke129;41805455]Because the world is black and white and painting a letter on a wall is the same as beating up someone or wrecking multiple cars[/QUOTE] EIGHT YEARS IN THE ISO CUBES, CREEP. I can't blame the kid for running, I can't blame the cops for chasing, I can't blame the kid for lashing out, I can't blame the cops for tasing. The news has been grim lately and people expect the worst from the cops. The cops know this and expect the worst from the people. Unstoppable force meets immovable object, and then people die. It's really a tough call because both parties were being fucking idiots and neither side was going "by the book" which lead to a death.
[QUOTE=xalener;41806872]EIGHT YEARS IN THE ISO CUBES, CREEP. I can't blame the kid for running, I can't blame the cops for chasing, I can't blame the kid for lashing out, I can't blame the cops for tasing. The news has been grim lately and people expect the worst from the cops. The cops know this and expect the worst from the people. Unstoppable force meets immovable object, and then people die. It's really a tough call because both parties were being fucking idiots and neither side was going "by the book" which lead to a death.[/QUOTE] Quick question. Why can't you blame the kid for running?
Cops are scary. Bad stories get out. Pretty much 100% of cop related news articles in the media is when shit like this happens. I wouldn't run myself, but I can see why he did.
Only time you should use tasers is when you are threatened in a situation that doesn't require lethal force. If someone is running, you fucking submit their ass. If you are incapable of taking down a resisting opponent you don't deserve to be a police officer.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41802356]Because it's escalating the situation. [B]The police have a duty to not just fight crime, but to protect the general public as well.[/B] If someone is tagging a building and then runs off, the crime has been stopped. If the police have no reason to believe that person is a danger to anything other than the building's paint job, they shouldn't necessarily give chase. This is more obviously the case with car chases, which many departments have phased out entirely, but foot chases can lead to injuries as well. The suspect could get hurt (or killed, as we see now), an officer could get hurt, or an innocent bystander could get hurt. Police should never be acting in a manner that puts more people in harm's way than would otherwise be there if they didn't act that way. In the end this isn't really comparable to the Trayvon Martin case though, as this case appears to be far more clearly a blatant overreaction.[/QUOTE] Actually I'm going to have to stop you right there. The police have no duty to protect you nor the general public. Protection is the responsibility of you alone. The police only have the duty to investigate and stop crime.
Yeah, just because there's a safety net under the wire doesn't mean you shouldn't worry about your balance and it doesn't mean the net can jump up and tangle you and slam you into the ground because you were a bit wobbly if that makes sense.
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;41806961]Actually I'm going to have to stop you right there. The police have no duty to protect you nor the general public. Protection is the responsibility of you alone. The police only have the duty to investigate and stop crime.[/QUOTE] literally every police car i've seen ever says "protect and serve" somewhere on it lmao
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;41806961]Actually I'm going to have to stop you right there. The police have no duty to protect you nor the general public. Protection is the responsibility of you alone. The police only have the duty to investigate and stop crime.[/QUOTE] So by your definition their job is to stop crime as opposed to stopping harm (protecting) So they should be stopping arbitrarily defined "bad behavior" instead of preventing actual harm. Remind me why they exist if that's actually what they're for.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;41807017]literally every police car i've seen ever says "protect and serve" somewhere on it lmao[/QUOTE] Yes, it's called a slogan. You're quoting the side of a police car and I'm quoting multiple court cases including the supreme court.
Yeah all those court cases you quoted Wait you didn't quote anything
Lets not jump the gun here and say that the taser alone killed him. We dont even know the official cause of death. [quote] A formal cause of death has not been established in the case pending toxicology results.[/quote] For all we know, he was on some shit and the taser just had made it worse. Not that the officers would've known. [quote]The officers state that when the teen would not stop, Officer Jorge Mercado shocked Israel Hernandez-Llach in the chest.[/quote] Ok, nothing strange here. A good center-mass hit in the chest. [quote]the Miami Beach Police's standard operating procedure for the use of force states that tasers may be used when "the subject is not in the physical control of the officer yet poses a threat,"[/quote] Would we all agree that the suspect was posing a threat when running from a petty crime and was obviously not in physical control? [quote] "You know, he's just a kid. He only weighed 140 pounds. He was just a child in so many ways. He was such a pure and innocent person."[/quote] Not to sound like a dick, but when someone is 18 and is committing a crime, they are neither a kid nor innocent. Statistically speaking, taser deaths result from underlying health conditions or drug use.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;41807017]literally every police car i've seen ever says "protect and serve" somewhere on it lmao[/QUOTE] I love the lmao flourish you concluded your post with.
[QUOTE=areolop;41807144]Would we all agree that the suspect was posing a threat when running from a petty crime and was obviously not in physical control?[/QUOTE] No, actually. People who aren't in control aren't automatically a threat, especially when running away and when the crime is less dangerous than J walking. A lot of people run away from police, and young people don't make the best decisions, that does not warrant assault, even if you're a cop.
[QUOTE=areolop;41807144] Would we all agree that the suspect was posing a threat when running from a petty crime and was obviously not in physical control? [/QUOTE] ..........No. I'm with you on all other counts, but come the fuck on. No god damn way. Holy shit.
I'm fairly sure tasers and other "non-lethal" weapons are technically considered "less than lethal" because they can still kill on rare occasions. [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;41805214]When police use lethal force, they get shit for it. When police use non-lethal force, they get shit for it. What if he was allergic to pepper spray and they used it on him and he died? What if they tackled him and he hit his head against the concrete and died? What if he had a heart problem and running from the police caused him to pass out and die?[/QUOTE] The police is always in the wrong and the victim always in the right
Now we're running down cops over the use of tasers? A cop using the force of a gun to stop some one is a more understandable to question, but some one dying in a freak occurrence from a taser?
[QUOTE=Apache249;41807167]I love the lmao flourish you concluded your post with.[/QUOTE] have you never read a kopimi post before
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;41806812]At what point would you draw this line between just letting criminals get away and giving chase? Does this also apply to people observed Actively destroying property? Stealing? Shoplifting? Wouldn't you worry that setting the precedent that running from the cops means you can get off scot free so long as you're not harming anyone could spread?[/QUOTE] More minor acts of vandalism and shoplifting is an entirely acceptable price to pay for fewer people being killed by police officers. [editline]11th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Apache249;41806893]Quick question. Why can't you blame the kid for running?[/QUOTE] Well, as has been demonstrated, it's would have been entirely plausible for him to be worried about the police literally killing him in the process of apprehending him.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41807270]More crime is an entirely acceptable price to pay for fewer people dying in freak accidents while running from the police.[/QUOTE] FTFY
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;41807295]FTFY[/QUOTE] Killing someone with a device known to regularly kill people is not a freak accident.
[QUOTE=lavacano;41802243] Sadly, pigs are the only ones that net the news media any money, so they're the only ones you hear about.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's not like the local media doesn't report on all those criminals (often minorities in those they cover) and blowing out of proportion what they're doing. Nope, it's just cops they badger. What is with these kinds of threads now? There's always a slam at "drones" and the implication of some media conspiracy or spin w/e. The persecution complex off this is weird. Honestly this case bares more resemblance to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant]BART killing of Oscar Grant[/url] than the Martin case anyways. As far as I can tell this also involved the police giving one angle and bystanders and the community giving another. However, at least in the Oscar Grant case video of the incident quickly came out to call bullshit on the police's initial claims to the whole mess- it's probably not coincidental that since then police nationwide have become alot more proactive to avoid citizens filming them and in some instances taken cases to destroy that evidence. What I've always been puzzled about this is the lack of skepticism towards the police that people are fine to do towards the victim- he should've listened or not did this etc etc. We are more than fine to show skepticism if not outright cynicism about the intention of those in positions of power- politicians, businessmen, hell even teachers, but I rarely see this towards police in the US. It's interesting usually looking at how these perceptions change by communities- at least from my experience people from more comfortable suburbs and such are more trusting of the police and the worst you'll see them complain about it is over a traffic stop. In less affluent (more urban) areas people are a lot more distrustful of police because of often bad experiences with them.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41807313]Killing someone with a device known to regularly kill people is not a freak accident.[/QUOTE] Yes it is. An 18 year old man should never die from a tazer, unless there was an unforeseeable heart condition or some such freak situation. You couldn't be more wrong.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;41802356]Because it's escalating the situation. The police have a duty to not just fight crime, but to protect the general public as well. If someone is tagging a building and then runs off, the crime has been stopped. If the police have no reason to believe that person is a danger to anything other than the building's paint job, they shouldn't necessarily give chase. This is more obviously the case with car chases, which many departments have phased out entirely, but foot chases can lead to injuries as well. The suspect could get hurt (or killed, as we see now), an officer could get hurt, or an innocent bystander could get hurt. Police should never be acting in a manner that puts more people in harm's way than would otherwise be there if they didn't act that way. In the end this isn't really comparable to the Trayvon Martin case though, as this case appears to be far more clearly a blatant overreaction.[/QUOTE] Well whether you agree or not, evading arrest/fleeing from the police is also a crime, so he was [i]still[/i] in the act.
[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;41807342]Yes it is. An 18 year old man should never die from a tazer, unless there was an unforeseeable heart condition or some such freak situation. You couldn't be more wrong.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Chronology]Man look at all these "freak accidents"[/url] At what point do "freak accidents" stop being freak and start becoming a trend?
*Facepunch on gun violence: WOW WHY DIDN'T HE USE NON-LETHAL FORCE FUCK THAT PIG *Facepunch on taser accidents: WOW WHY DIDN'T THEY LET HIM RUN AWAY FROM THE CRIME SCENE INSTEAD OF USING NORMALLY NON-LETHAL FORCE FUCK THAT PIG (*some people on) [editline]12th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41807374][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Chronology]Man look at all these "freak accidents"[/url] At what point do "freak accidents" stop being freak and start becoming a trend?[/QUOTE] Out of 245 cases: [quote]In 7 cases, medical examiners said Tasers were a cause or a contributing factor or could not be ruled out as a cause of death.[/quote]
[QUOTE=lavacano;41802243]Not [b]all[/b] of them. Just the pigs. Sadly, pigs are the only ones that net the news media any money, so they're the only ones you hear about.[/QUOTE] wtf does this mean, "pig" as slang refers to all police not a certain kind. This post reminds me of the kind of person who tries to redefine "nigger" as a race-neutral definition for a specific kind of person (which almost always seems to be a black stereotype anyway). You can't just reverse decades of linguistics because it's convenient.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41807374][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Chronology]Man look at all these "freak accidents"[/url] At what point do "freak accidents" stop being freak and start becoming a trend?[/QUOTE] Skimmed through, almost ALL of them were due to some sort of heart problem or impact with the concrete. Some aren't even directly due to the tazer. Also that's really not a lot of cases. A few hundred recorded deaths by taser since 2003 is not a lot.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;41807138]Yeah all those court cases you quoted Wait you didn't quote anything[/QUOTE] Well it's 2am in the morning here so I was gonna hold off until later, but since you are persistent, here you go. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia]Warren v. District of Columbia[/url] - A DC court in 1981 ruled that the police owe no duty to victims of crime unless a special relationship exists after several women were raped twice and were ignored by the police. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales]Castle Rock v. Gonzales[/url] - The US supreme court case in 2005 which ruled that police officers had no duty to enforce a restraining order on behalf of an individual after a wife lost three daughters from her husband who broke the order. [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12289225]Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department[/url] - A case in 1988 ruled that police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime after a woman sued the police department for neglecting to protect her from an abusive husband. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County]DeShaney v. Winnebago County[/url] - The supreme court case in 1989 ruled that a government agency had no special duty to protect a child from an abusive father entrusted with his care and under watch. [url=http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/davidson-v-city-westminster-28281]Davidson v. City of Westminster[/url] - The California supreme court in 1982 ruled that the police witnessing a crime about to occur on a victim does not establish a special relationship with the victim to protect said victim when a woman was stabbed multiple times in a public area. [url=http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/51629]Hartzler v. City of San Jose[/url] - A case in 1975 ruled that the police had no duty to protect a murder victim who called the police for aid from her deranged husband. [url=http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~zuckerpr/cases/riss.htm]Linda Riss v. City of New York[/url] - A case in 1968 where the court denied that the police had a duty to protect a woman who was terrorized for 6 months before being permanently scarred. The thing is it is really easy to look at the side of a police car and say "Oh, to protect and serve, there ya go" but that's just not how it works. I'm sure everything I linked above is only a fraction of how many civil cases like this occur. Ultimately, your own protection is your own responsibility.
From that wikipedia article on taser deaths: [quote] "Based on the available evidence, and on accepted criteria for defining product risk vs. efficacy, we believe that when stun technology is appropriately applied, it is relatively safe and clearly effective. The only known field data that are available suggest that the odds are, at worst, one in one thousand that a stun device would contribute to (and this does not imply “cause”) death. This figure is likely not different than the odds of death when stun devices are not used, but when other multiple force measures are. A more defensible figure is one in one hundred thousand."[/quote] [quote]They estimated a 0.4% chance of heart muscle stimulation among the general population with optimum (or worst case) electrode placement, which would normally resolve itself with the resumption of a normal heart beat.[/quote] and most of all [quote]San Francisco cardiologist and electrophysiologist Dr. Zian Tseng told the Braidwood Inquiry that a healthy individual could die from a Taser discharge, depending on electrode placement on the chest and pulse timing. He said that the risk of serious injury or death is increased by the number of activations, adrenaline or drugs in the bloodstream, and a susceptible medical history.[/quote] [editline]12th August 2013[/editline] learned some stuff too reading through there
[QUOTE=HighdefGE;41807412]Well it's 2am in the morning here so I was gonna hold off until later, but since you are persistent, here you go. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia]Warren v. District of Columbia[/url] - A DC court in 1981 ruled that the police owe no duty to victims of crime unless a special relationship exists after several women were raped twice and were ignored by the police. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales]Castle Rock v. Gonzales[/url] - The US supreme court case in 2005 which ruled that police officers had no duty to enforce a restraining order on behalf of an individual after a wife lost three daughters from her husband who broke the order. [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12289225]Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department[/url] - A case in 1988 ruled that police had no constitutional duty to protect people from crime after a woman sued the police department for neglecting to protect her from an abusive husband. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County]DeShaney v. Winnebago County[/url] - The supreme court case in 1989 ruled that a government agency had no special duty to protect a child from an abusive father entrusted with his care and under watch. [url=http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/davidson-v-city-westminster-28281]Davidson v. City of Westminster[/url] - The California supreme court in 1982 ruled that the police witnessing a crime about to occur on a victim does not establish a special relationship with the victim to protect said victim when a woman was stabbed multiple times in a public area. [url=http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/51629]Hartzler v. City of San Jose[/url] - A case in 1975 ruled that the police had no duty to protect a murder victim who called the police for aid from her deranged husband. [url=http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~zuckerpr/cases/riss.htm]Linda Riss v. City of New York[/url] - A case in 1968 where the court denied that the police had a duty to protect a woman who was terrorized for 6 months before being permanently scarred. The thing is it is really easy to look at the side of a police car and say "Oh, to protect and serve, there ya go" but that's just not how it works. I'm sure everything I linked above is only a fraction of how many civil cases like this occur. Ultimately, your own protection is your own responsibility.[/QUOTE] So the only job of police is to enforce laws. So they exist to enforce arbitrary shit that those with power legislate regardless of if they protect anyone. Why the fuck do people tolerate this? Also why are all these cases about abusive husbands?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.