Quake3World

tnf wrote:

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.

And drive-offs immediately become more dangerous when the cops pursue a high-speed chase. They have the woman's license, her plate #, they know generally where she is. They can follow her with a helicopter until she runs out of gas if they have to, but initiating a violent high-speed chase over a suspended license is unnecessarily putting the rest of the community in danger. By driving off, she is only making her own situation worse, and showing her stupidity by making her penalty much harsher in the end. The cops should treat the situation as such, knowing that she'll get what she deserves in court. Once her car stops, the police will know where she is and she'll be even more fucked than she was before.

tnf wrote:Everyone here seems to have assumed that that is an impossibilty. Remember, civilians, especially large women, are not the highly trained like the cops are, and thus really don't pose much risk.

Aye. Jules, if that was you in that situation (i.e., you weren't just sitting around thinking about everything for once), your own life would outway this lady's 5 seconds of pain.

Edit: And regardless if you have 50 men as backup. It only takes 1 bullet to kill someone, and you might be the 1 person getting shot.

R00k wrote:
And drive-offs immediately become more dangerous when the cops pursue a high-speed chase. They have the woman's license, her plate #, they know generally where she is. They can follow her with a helicopter until she runs out of gas if they have to, but initiating a violent high-speed chase over a suspended license is unnecessarily putting the rest of the community in danger. By driving off, she is only making her own situation worse, and showing her stupidity by making her penalty much harsher in the end. The cops should treat the situation as such, knowing that she'll get what she deserves in court. Once her car stops, the police will know where she is and she'll be even more fucked than she was before.

yea, but she could have caused accidents as she drove off, even without the chase - she was obviously irrational. I've seen that on those 'wild police' videos...the person just takes off, and before the cop is even in their car they have sideswiped someone else or ran an intersection or whatever. I've also seen one where the person went forward, threw it into reverse, and then tried to back over teh cops.

Foo wrote:

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.

lol, but why is it a necessity to have the woman outside her car immediately, within the next 15 seconds, in the first place, if she is not endangering anyone?

The cops are supposed to be trained to negotiate tense situations -- they definitely should be able to talk this woman down until she is calm enough to listen to them, unless she is on mind-altering substances or something.

tnf wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:
Ok - i take back the gender issue to a degree.

But I still hold that using the taser was unecessary, unless the objective is to completely reduce risk to cops, which I think is misguided.

Then right there is where the whole disagreement hinges.

If a cop has the choice of being so much as scratched in the face if he doesn't taser a person, vs. not being scratched at all if he does, I think he is justified in tasering. He/she should not have to 'expect' ANY form of assault from an UNCOOPERATIVE CRIMINAL, regardless of how minimal.

But tasing has caused over 100 deaths. It's worth that risk to avoid a scratch in the face?

R00k wrote:The cops are supposed to be trained to negotiate tense situations -- they definitely should be able to talk this woman down until she is calm enough to listen to them, unless she is on mind-altering substances or something.

I'll concede this point.

Foo wrote:

R00k wrote:The cops are supposed to be trained to negotiate tense situations -- they definitely should be able to talk this woman down until she is calm enough to listen to them, unless she is on mind-altering substances or something.

I'll concede this point.

She doesn't need to be on mind-altering substances. She is a large, pissed off woman. If you could negotiate that down, there'd be a lot less kids getting beat up at K-Marts, the mall, and probably a lot less guys sleeping on couches.

Foo wrote:here come the taser death figures!...

You think they're irrelevant?

there is a strong correlation between ice cream sales and rapes.

Stop the ice cream!

By the way, I am not sure how that applies, but I wanted to use it in an argument with statistics at some point.

I find that ice cream is a great enticement to get the kiddies to come round the back of the van.

R00k wrote:

Foo wrote:here come the taser death figures!...

You think they're irrelevant?

Not when correlated against all other figures. What's happening with the taser figures is people are saying 'x many people have died after being tasered' which is biased. One, deaths after tasering outweight deaths directly linked to tasering massively. For example, someone ODing flips out, cops taser them, they later die. This gets added to the tasering statistic.

Two, comparing figures side-by-side would reduce bias. For example, x many people died out of how many total tasered? If it's one in a million, which may not be an inaccurate estimate, then the figure sounds less severe.

I didn't even want to have to get into the debate over badly presented figures, hence the earlier post.

Furthermore, how many of those tasering deaths would have been shooting deaths had the cops not had the taser available (meaning the person would have been shot anyhow if LDL force had not been available)?

People use the statistic to make it sound like everyone who was tasered was stopped for jaywalking.

tnf wrote:A couple years ago, in this city, there was a fallout because a young, deaf kid was shot by cops.
He had stolen a case of beer from a convenience store using an air pistol that looked just like an 9mm (most of you probably know the type). He was in the middle of the street, waving the gun around. The female cop was in a position behind her car yelling at him to drop the gun, and she had her gun pointed at him. The young man turned, squared the gun and aimed it right at her, and smirked. She shot him.

There was outrage from the typical groups who couldn't believe that the situation ended this way - saying that she should have noticed his hearing aids (as if somehow that would have made pointing a gun at a cop OK.) Then they went off about how it was 'just an air gun' (although i guarantee none of them would have been able to tell the difference from 30 feet at dusk).

Obviously with someone holding what clearly looks like a gun, the cop has no choice but to shoot.

That is a completely different situation, and you are using the story to turn this into a general plea for sympathy for police officers' plight. It has nothing in common with this story, except for the fact that there was a controversy over it and people were criticizing the officer involved. Saying that cops are always the underdogs and deserve our support in this case, because that cop was wrongly maligned in the other case, isn't really addressing the issue.

Edit: Also, like you said, in cases like this, there is always a group of people who blame the cops for everything, which ruins any chance of an objective evaluation of the situation. But by the same token, there is also always a group who claims that the cops have a hard way to go, and deserve our sympathy and support except in the most extreme and obvious cases of abuse.
This clouds the issue also, and doesn't help to address the problem at hand.

Wouldn't you agree that it's best to evaluate each situation individually, without bias from other cases and events that are materially unrelated?

Not at all. It points to an underlying mentality that many people have - that we live in this world where police can always have the intuition and luxury of using 'just the right amount of force' to deal with a situation.

Police officers should have to follow the same rules as anybody else, therefore they shouldn't inflict pain on anybody unless they're under an immediate threat (no, getting slapped by a fat lady is not an immediate threat).

tnf wrote:Not at all. It points to an underlying mentality that many people have - that we live in this world where police can always have the intuition and luxury of using 'just the right amount of force' to deal with a situation.

Certain mistakes are understandable, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't point them out when they happen.

Foo wrote:Not when correlated against all other figures. What's happening with the taser figures is people are saying 'x many people have died after being tasered' which is biased. One, deaths after tasering outweight deaths directly linked to tasering massively. For example, someone ODing flips out, cops taser them, they later die. This gets added to the tasering statistic.

Two, comparing figures side-by-side would reduce bias. For example, x many people died out of how many total tasered? If it's one in a million, which may not be an inaccurate estimate, then the figure sounds less severe.

I didn't even want to have to get into the debate over badly presented figures, hence the earlier post.

I agree that they're not necessarily specific as far as describing circumstances. But that is irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

There have been deaths proven to be the result of tasers, even if there were only 10 of them. This means that tasers are potentially fatal. Which means they shouldn't be used as a coercive tool, or anything short of an alternative to a gun.

They certainly shouldn't be used to make someone roll over who is lying on the ground face up.

tnf wrote:Furthermore, how many of those tasering deaths would have been shooting deaths had the cops not had the taser available (meaning the person would have been shot anyhow if LDL force had not been available)?

People use the statistic to make it sound like everyone who was tasered was stopped for jaywalking.

That's a valid point too, but again, it doesn't change the point I'm trying to make. The fact that tasers are capable of killing at all, means they should be used much more sparingly than just to mitigate the risk of a scratch in the face or a punch in the stomach even.

He had the taser trained on her - if she had made a move for the glovebox, under her seat, or anything, he would have been right to tase her. But for not listening to him? He took the risk, even if a small one, that she might be killed.

Tasers are considered by everyone as non-lethal weapons, which is the reason there is so much support for them. But the fact that they do kill some people should be grounds for a complete review and re-evaluation of the way they are used on the streets.

Did you know that the Taser company only tested the tasers on a pig and a few dogs before releasing them to the public and law enforcement as "non-lethal" weapons?

R00k wrote:He had the taser trained on her - if she had made a move for the glovebox, under her seat, or anything, he would have been right to tase her. But for not listening to him? He took the risk, even if a small one, that she might be killed.

One article said she swung at him.

SplishSplash wrote:Police officers should have to follow the same rules as anybody else, therefore they shouldn't inflict pain on anybody unless they're under an immediate threat (no, getting slapped by a fat lady is not an immediate threat).

yea...you should be a cop...see how long you last.

By your logic, a cop should be allowed to let someone slap them and cannot resist - because resisting would cause pain.

And women that pissed don't just slap. But I've explained that before.

R00k wrote:

tnf wrote:Furthermore, how many of those tasering deaths would have been shooting deaths had the cops not had the taser available (meaning the person would have been shot anyhow if LDL force had not been available)?

People use the statistic to make it sound like everyone who was tasered was stopped for jaywalking.

That's a valid point too, but again, it doesn't change the point I'm trying to make. The fact that tasers are capable of killing at all, means they should be used much more sparingly than just to mitigate the risk of a scratch in the face or a punch in the stomach even.

He had the taser trained on her - if she had made a move for the glovebox, under her seat, or anything, he would have been right to tase her. But for not listening to him? He took the risk, even if a small one, that she might be killed.

Tasers are considered by everyone as non-lethal weapons, which is the reason there is so much support for them. But the fact that they do kill some people should be grounds for a complete review and re-evaluation of the way they are used on the streets.

Did you know that the Taser company only tested the tasers on a pig and a few dogs before releasing them to the public and law enforcement as "non-lethal" weapons?

Perhaps he had to shit really, really bad and just wanted to get the thing over with quickly.

tell me you wouldn't do the same if you had a turtle poking its head out and some woman was wasting your time during a routine infraction.

*sorry this thread needs to return to some humor*

Post some details of those deaths supposedly caused by tazers, instead of just saying there has been 100 deaths envolving tazers. You'll find that most of those people were jacked up on drugs and died of a heart attack later on. They weren't killed by the tazer, they were killed by the drugs. Their heart rate increased during the confrontation, as it would have durring a purely physical struggle and they died when their heart exploded due to excessive amounts of drungs in their system.

You weak minded, bleeding heart pansies need to get a dose of reality. The tazer is the safest measure available to aid in the restraint of a combative suspect. It guarantees less injuries than a phisical struggle (i.e. broken limbs, HIV infected bleeding and so on). It's much less painful and lasting than being coated in the face with pepper spray and it usually brings an end to the confrotaion with the mear threat of using it because people are afraid of being shocked.

Get real people and wake up.

Edit: BTW, she got hit the second time because she was trying to pull out the taser probes without following the commands of the officer. If you 'listen' to the full video, the officer explains her injuries to his commander on the raido.

inolen wrote:

R00k wrote:He had the taser trained on her - if she had made a move for the glovebox, under her seat, or anything, he would have been right to tase her. But for not listening to him? He took the risk, even if a small one, that she might be killed.

One article said she swung at him.

If you watch the full video, you'll hear the police officer tell the lady that she took a swing at his partner.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: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.

Well, at least you've shown it's not an American phenomenon