Quake3World

well our species hasn't evolved to the point where we can be completely consistent in our discourse.

btw you ever gonna reply to that post?

[xeno]Julios wrote:well our species hasn't evolved to the point where we can be completely consistent in our discourse.

btw you ever gonna reply to that post?

I actually thought about some of the stuff you posted during a plane trip....but then utterly forgot about it since I've been back. I mean no offense by this but I really don't remember seeing an argument to respond to...just sort of a loose collection of ideas that bear some familial resemblance...that's probably exactly what you intended but I find it difficult to know where to begin when an argument is not presented. In fact, I'm not exactly clear as to what viewpoint you were trying to suggest with you comments. Care to try sharpening your view into an argument of some kind?

I find all this very fascinating but it's just too easy for me to go off in a million different directions unless I have a specific target. :icon31:

will try to dig up the thread again. Might be a few days.

YourGrandpa wrote:

R00k wrote:He could have stood there, right out of her reach. No danger whatsoever.

The way I understand it she wasn't being arrested, simply ticketed for driving on a suspended license.
If that's the case, why not stand there until she stops blubbering, write her ticket, wad it up in a ball, and hit her in the face with it, then leave?

Driving on a suspended license isn't an offence you just get ticketed for. Don't you understand that she's not suppose to be driving? Do you think the officer is going to give her a ticket and let her drive off? What a fool. Morons like you make me ill. Why should a law enforcement officer wait arround outside the car until she's ready to comply? That's completely idiotic. He's got a job to do and that job is not to wait around until some stupid bitch is ready to comply. Given the way she was reacting to the situation to begin with, didn't leave any room to believe she had intentions of cooperating any time soon. If the officers just stood there, she may have driven off or enouraged others to show up in her defense. Both of those outcomes could have endanger the officers and others.

She repeatedly broke the law and paid for it in a way where everyone walked away unharmed. How any moron can confuse that with excessive force is beyond me.

Where I live, driving on a suspended license is not an arrestable offense - driving on a revoked license is. Suspended licenses come from not paying tickets, etc. A DUI will get your license revoked.

Secondly, I don't have sympathy for her, I'm not "siding with" her or anything of the sort. She's obviously a retarded cunt, but that has no bearing on the point I'm trying to make.

You are justifying any use of force the cop decides on simply because she was acting like an irritating, rotten bitch. I'm sure you would have loved it if the cop had slapped her in the face too, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing for an officer of the law to do. He is not there to mete out any sort of punishment whatsoever - that's the court's place. He is simply there to let her know she's done something that requires a presence in court, and serve her official notice of it.

Justifying any use of force he decides to use, simply because she was in the wrong, or because she's a dumb cuntbucket, is not a healthy rationale for deciding police officers' role in our society.

If he had shot her with a rubber bullet , would you also say that was a reasonable reaction? It's not meant to be lethal, but potentially can be, just like a tazer.

R00k wrote: Where I live, driving on a suspended license is not an arrestable offense - driving on a revoked license is. Suspended licenses come from not paying tickets, etc. A DUI will get your license revoked.

Secondly, I don't have sympathy for her, I'm not "siding with" her or anything of the sort. She's obviously a retarded cunt, but that has no bearing on the point I'm trying to make.

You are justifying any use of force the cop decides on simply because she was acting like an irritating, rotten bitch. I'm sure you would have loved it if the cop had slapped her in the face too, but that doesn't mean that it's the right thing for an officer of the law to do. He is not there to mete out any sort of punishment whatsoever - that's the court's place. He is simply there to let her know she's done something that requires a presence in court, and serve her official notice of it.

Justifying any use of force he decides to use, simply because she was in the wrong, or because she's a dumb cuntbucket, is not a healthy rationale for deciding police officers' role in our society.

If he had shot her with a rubber bullet , would you also say that was a reasonable reaction? It's not meant to be lethal, but potentially can be, just like a tazer.

Driving on a suspended license means you do not have a valid license and you're not allowed to drive. That's broken law number 1.

I am only justifying the force used in this situation, because this is the situation we're talking about. She wasn't tazed because she's a nasty, blah, blah, blah, anything. She was tazed because she wouldn't comply and resisted arrest. It wasn't a punishment for her actions, you flipin moron. It was a safety measure used to end the conflit without serious injury. BTW, that's broken law number 2.

Who would you have decide what force is necessary to apprehend a suspect? Should the police officer ask the suspect how they'd like to be arrested? Maybe the officer could ask a passer-by what to do? Wake up Jr., that's the officer's job.

Lets try and stay focused here. He didn't shoot her with a rubber bullet, he tazed her. But only after she took a swing at an officer and broke law number 3.

Give up. She's an idiot and so are you.

HAY, U R AN MORON, LOLLER!

Kinda weird.

I live in the great state of Texas where guns are as common as anything else (that being said I've never seen a handgun not owned by a police officer). Anyway, my dad tells me that if I ever get pulled over or whatever that its important to keep both hands in clear view of the police officer that way he knows youre not up to some funny business.

Being a police officer is a stressful job as TNF said. When someone disobeys you repeatedly, you have to wonder whats going on. Does this person have some alternative motive? Are they calling for "back up"? Given that the other person was in a car, disobeying an armed officer, I would have no idea whats going on. I probably have done the same thing--given her a bazillion warnings and then tazed her.

I wonder whats worse actually...to be tazed or pepper sprayed...hm.

YourGrandpa wrote: The problem with that logic is, she was offered a choice. Get out of the car or get tazed. Getting mugged and dying in a car accident aren't choices people typically make.

And wearing a seatbelt isn't a choice? The consequences have different probabilities of manifesting - it is more likely that you will get tazered if you disobey a cop who is threatening to tazer you, than you will kill yourself by choosing not to wear a seatbelt.

My point is that probabilities do not inherently justify the consequences, especially when those consequences are the harmful actions of another person.

If someone grabs a loved one of mine, and points a gun at her head, and demands I give my watch to him else he'll shoot her, and I refuse, resulting in her death, did that justify the murder?

I may have deserved it, according to some operational definitions of "deserve", but that does not imply the object of my deserving was justified.

Similarly, the woman may have deserved getting herself tazered, but that does not automatically mean that the cop was doing the right thing.

Chupacabra wrote:I wonder whats worse actually...to be tazed or pepper sprayed...hm.

Pepper spray by far.

YourGrandpa wrote:Driving on a suspended license means you do not have a valid license and you're not allowed to drive. That's broken law number 1.

I am only justifying the force used in this situation, because this is the situation we're talking about. She wasn't tazed because she's a nasty, blah, blah, blah, anything. She was tazed because she wouldn't comply and resisted arrest. It wasn't a punishment for her actions, you flipin moron. It was a safety measure used to end the conflit without serious injury. BTW, that's broken law number 2.

Who would you have decide what force is necessary to apprehend a suspect? Should the police officer ask the suspect how they'd like to be arrested? Maybe the officer could ask a passer-by what to do? Wake up Jr., that's the officer's job.

Lets try and stay focused here. He didn't shoot her with a rubber bullet, he tazed her. But only after she took a swing at an officer and broke law number 3.

Give up. She's an idiot and so are you.

I should have known better than to attempt a real discussion with you, you mouth breather. You're all worked up and emotional like a woman over this and it didn't even happen to you. You sound like Sean Hannity or something, LOL.


Anyway, over 100 people have died by taser already, and cops should not be allowed to use them except in situations where they would be able to use a gun.

The idea that it was for safety or self-protection against a fat bitch talking on a cellphone is horseshit any way you slice it. There's a possibility he could have killed her, but he used it anyway, basically just to shut her up.

You say I want cops to ask passers-by how to handle situations. You call a hand-slap "taking a swing" at a cop (would you personally taser a woman who slapped your hand while trying to grab something from her, and give the pussy response that she "took a swing" at you? lol). And you are trying to patronize me, which is like a high-school special ed student trying to talk down to a 12 year old because nobody else takes him seriously.

You seem to have a lot of personal emotion invested in this issue. :lol:

R00k wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:

.

You call a hand-slap "taking a swing" at a cop (would you personally taser a woman who slapped your hand while trying to grab something from her, and give the pussy response that she "took a swing" at you? lol). A

of course he would

RiffRaff wrote:I understand you have your opinion and I have mine. At this point we could leave it at that.

Kinda defeats the point of a discussion forum. Clue is in the name.


Anyway, my initial reaction to this video was that the cop overreacted. However, after thinking about it for a short time, and running through the other options he had, it was the most appropriate one.

Those arguing that she 'got what she deserved' don't really understand what policing is about.

Those arguing that she 'might have pulled a gun' and that's why he tasered her are missing the point too, the most preferred option - dragging her out of the car manually - puts the officer in potential danger from needles/knife and since the suspect is already irrational and loud, that seems quite possible.

Third, forget the 'male cop, female victim' angle. It's sexist.

Tormentius wrote:Yeah, thats easy to do because all criminals buy their guns legally from the local 7-11.

Ni**a please. In works in every other part of the world, but not in America? You're not fooling anybody.

Taser deaths targeted by rights group
Last updated May 26 2004 06:51 PM PDT
CBC News
VANCOUVER – Citing the deaths of two B.C. men, Amnesty International is calling for the suspension of Taser gun use by police officers.

In its annual human rights report, Amnesty lists two incidents of what it calls "police brutality" in B.C.

* LINK: Amnesty International annual report on Canada

In both cases, officers used Tasers to subdue suspects. And both men later died.

Foo wrote:
Third, forget the 'male cop, female victim' angle. It's sexist.

No, it isn't.

Two male cops facing one hysterical woman is not the same situation as a female cop facing a hysterical man.

There are realities that one must face in assessing a situation, just as you would in a similar situation.

Sexism implies unfair or irrational judgement based on sex. It is not irrational to judge women being, on average, physically weaker than men.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Foo wrote:
Third, forget the 'male cop, female victim' angle. It's sexist.

No, it isn't.

Two male cops facing one hysterical woman is not the same situation as a female cop facing a hysterical man.

There are realities that one must face in assessing a situation, just as you would in a similar situation.

Sexism implies unfair or irrational judgement based on sex. It is not irrational to judge women being, on average, physically weaker than men.

How many fights between drunken or irate women - especially large women - have you broken up Jules? I'm guessing none. I've dealt with many back in the days at the bar, and let me tell yiou something - female fights are WORSE to break up than male fights. They kick, gauge, scratch, bite, pull hair (I can't tell you what it is like trying to pry the fingers off of a handful of hair that a chick has grabbed in rage). My rule for breaking up fights with guys was to let them go at it for about 10 seconds (unless there was a beer bottle, pool cue, etc, involved, then we swarmed instantly), because they guys would be exhausted within that time - since most had no idea what fighting really involved (they'd punch themselves out). Women were not like that. They don't stop.

So, before you pontificate on the realities of facing a situation, you might want to ask yourself - "How many times have I, personally, faced this situation - or something very similar?"

The fact that it was a woman makes it no less dangerous for the cops in terms of sustaining some form of injury - a bite, a poke in the eye, a kick in the nuts, etc.. (this wasn't a petite woman either)

From CBS:

Sgt. Sedrick Aiken says Officer McNevin was forced to use his taser gun the first time because she pulled away from him, and the second time because the suspect hadn't been searched for weapons. He added that she could've injured herself or someone else.

He had to tase her because she pulled away. Clearly she was "pulling away" in a threatening manner that could have injured him or someone else.

The second time he tased her just to get her to roll over, like it's some kind of ridiculous dog training procedure. Since she hadn't been 'searched for weapons' they obviously couldn't grab her two empty hands that were in plain view, and rolled her over and cuffed her. She probably had an implanted third arm that she was getting ready to stab them with the moment they tried it.

The first shock was a hair-trigger reaction, and could probably be debated whether he was justified in doing it (but in my opinion he wasn't).
The second shock was overboard, no question. She was on her back on the pavement blubbering like a spoiled baby, and he shocked her just to make her roll over. That was using the taser for coersion, which is not the purpose they are intended for, even according to the police departments themselves.

I would agree that the second tasering (I didn't realize he did it a second time) was overboard. The initial tasering, however, was still justified IMHO (read my post at the end of 7.)

tnf wrote:How many fights between drunken or irate women - especially large women - have you broken up Jules? I'm guessing none. I've dealt with many back in the days at the bar, and let me tell yiou something - female fights are WORSE to break up than male fights. They kick, gauge, scratch, bite, pull hair (I can't tell you what it is like trying to pry the fingers off of a handful of hair that a chick has grabbed in rage). My rule for breaking up fights with guys was to let them go at it for about 10 seconds (unless there was a beer bottle, pool cue, etc, involved, then we swarmed instantly), because they guys would be exhausted within that time - since most had no idea what fighting really involved (they'd punch themselves out). Women were not like that. They don't stop.

So, before you pontificate on the realities of facing a situation, you might want to ask yourself - "How many times have I, personally, faced this situation - or something very similar?"

The fact that it was a woman makes it no less dangerous for the cops in terms of sustaining some form of injury - a bite, a poke in the eye, a kick in the nuts, etc.. (this wasn't a petite woman either)

Except that the woman, sitting in the car, with the cop standing out of her reach, could not have been a threat until she tried to get out of the car. If she had started to reach for a weapon I would consider her a threat in that position, but she obviously didn't or the officer would have mentioned that.

Saying she was a threat to anybody is just a hyped justification after the fact, IMO.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Foo wrote:
Third, forget the 'male cop, female victim' angle. It's sexist.

No, it isn't.

Two male cops facing one hysterical woman is not the same situation as a female cop facing a hysterical man.

There are realities that one must face in assessing a situation, just as you would in a similar situation.

Sexism implies unfair or irrational judgement based on sex. It is not irrational to judge women being, on average, physically weaker than men.

Why are you trying to apply a generality to this when you can see in the video that the woman in the car is a big person?

Second, as I said, it's not a question of grappling, because being able to pull a syringe, knife or gun on someone doesn't have anything to do with size.

tnf wrote: How many fights between drunken or irate women - especially large women - have you broken up Jules? I'm guessing none. I've dealt with many back in the days at the bar, and let me tell yiou something - female fights are WORSE to break up than male fights. They kick, gauge, scratch, bite, pull hair (I can't tell you what it is like trying to pry the fingers off of a handful of hair that a chick has grabbed in rage). My rule for breaking up fights with guys was to let them go at it for about 10 seconds (unless there was a beer bottle, pool cue, etc, involved, then we swarmed instantly), because they guys would be exhausted within that time - since most had no idea what fighting really involved (they'd punch themselves out). Women were not like that. They don't stop.

So, before you pontificate on the realities of facing a situation, you might want to ask yourself - "How many times have I, personally, faced this situation - or something very similar?"

The fact that it was a woman makes it no less dangerous for the cops in terms of sustaining some form of injury - a bite, a poke in the eye, a kick in the nuts, etc.. (this wasn't a petite woman either)

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned - i realize and understand that a woman can be dangerous.

If there was one male cop vs one woman, then i'd agree that the situation would not be that straightforward, but it was two male cops vs. one woman.

Sure there might be a risk that she'd get super violent and injure one of the cops.

But that should be part of the risk of the job.

I mean, if they really wanted to cut down risk, they could have tasered her before even talking to her.

There is a balance of risk and "necessary" harm. I happen to think that the use of the taser erred heavily on the side of reducing risk.

It didn't seem like the woman was making any physical threats to the cops. She was just being retarded and non-compliant. Slapping a hand away does not constitute threatening behaviour. There were many more options that could have been exercised before it became necessary to use the taser.

R00k wrote:

tnf wrote:How many fights between drunken or irate women - especially large women - have you broken up Jules? I'm guessing none. I've dealt with many back in the days at the bar, and let me tell yiou something - female fights are WORSE to break up than male fights. They kick, gauge, scratch, bite, pull hair (I can't tell you what it is like trying to pry the fingers off of a handful of hair that a chick has grabbed in rage). My rule for breaking up fights with guys was to let them go at it for about 10 seconds (unless there was a beer bottle, pool cue, etc, involved, then we swarmed instantly), because they guys would be exhausted within that time - since most had no idea what fighting really involved (they'd punch themselves out). Women were not like that. They don't stop.

So, before you pontificate on the realities of facing a situation, you might want to ask yourself - "How many times have I, personally, faced this situation - or something very similar?"

The fact that it was a woman makes it no less dangerous for the cops in terms of sustaining some form of injury - a bite, a poke in the eye, a kick in the nuts, etc.. (this wasn't a petite woman either)

Except that the woman, sitting in the car, with the cop standing out of her reach, could not have been a threat until she tried to get out of the car. If she had started to reach for a weapon I would consider her a threat in that position, but she obviously didn't or the officer would have mentioned that.

Saying she was a threat to anybody is just a hyped justification after the fact, IMO.

She could have: A) Driven off in a rage without getting out - making her a threat.
She could have: B) Resisted dramatically when the officers tried to remove her from the car physicall to prevent A.
Either case makes her a threat.
And people do drive off once the cops are out of their cars. Sometimes while the cop is right next to them, trying to hold on through the open window.

R00k wrote:Except that the woman, sitting in the car, with the cop standing out of her reach, could not have been a threat until she tried to get out of the car. If she had started to reach for a weapon I would consider her a threat in that position, but she obviously didn't or the officer would have mentioned that.

Saying she was a threat to anybody is just a hyped justification after the fact, IMO.

The only other option would be to reach into the car and pull her out, which completely nullifies your 'he's standing too far away' idea.

Foo wrote:
Second, as I said, it's not a question of grappling, because being able to pull a syringe, knife or gun on someone doesn't have anything to do with size.

She was using a cellphone. If the cops were in proper position, there'd be no way she'd be able to magically conjure up any of those weapons (which were not in plain view) before they grabbed her arms.

Hell - i'd call for backup to get more cops on the scene if it meant I didn't have to taser someone.

You can see that the guy was just waiting for an excuse to tase her.

@Jules -
Trust me, even two men have their hands full when dealing with a woman 200+ lbs who is fucking crazy. The biggest reason is that you can't really do the same thing you would do to a guy - for example, just ram your knee into his stomach or groin and drop him. With a woman, you have to try and 'subdue' without really taking any offensive action or people are going to say "I can't believe you hit that girl."

Trust me - even breaking up fights with high school girls (two weighing less than 110 lbs) can be tricky for a guy who doesn't want to risk a kick to the groin or a fingernail to the eye.