Quake3World

R00k wrote: Yep, the 80 year old lady who hit a cop in the arm with her cane was charged with assault too. God he should have tased that bitch to the ground.

More jibberish and speculation. Blah, blah, blah tase an old lady, blah.

Shut up.

Dave wrote:

YourGrandpa wrote:

Dave wrote:Gramps has to lead off all of his retorts with an insult. He's the reason that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.

Yeah, and because I'm right you'll overlook the multiple insults Doork posted because he's been made to look like a complete idiot.

1v1 funboy?

I never reinstalled Quake when I built my new system, sorry.

Dave wrote:Gramps has to lead off all of his retorts with an insult. He's the reason that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.

Yea, or make them consist of nothing but insults. One of us is trying to debate a point, and the other one is just trying to win a pissing contest. It's like a train wreck, I just can't stay away.

R00k wrote:

Dave wrote:Gramps has to lead off all of his retorts with an insult. He's the reason that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.

Yea, or make them consist of nothing but insults. One of us is trying to debate a point, and the other one is just trying to win a pissing contest. It's like a train wreck, I just can't stay away.

You have no logical ground to stand on and you've been exposed for the complete moron you are.

Deal with it and move on.

YourGrandpa wrote:

R00k wrote: Yep, the 80 year old lady who hit a cop in the arm with her cane was charged with assault too. God he should have tased that bitch to the ground.

More jibberish and speculation. Blah, blah, blah tase an old lady, blah.

Shut up.

You're the one who said it, not me. The technical definition of assault is worth a good tasing.

I'd say the cane smack probably did more damage than the hand slap, so what's the difference here?

YourGrandpa wrote:

R00k wrote:

Dave wrote:Gramps has to lead off all of his retorts with an insult. He's the reason that arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics.

Yea, or make them consist of nothing but insults. One of us is trying to debate a point, and the other one is just trying to win a pissing contest. It's like a train wreck, I just can't stay away.

You have no logical ground to stand on and you've been exposed for the complete moron you are.

Deal with it and move on.

lol, a lecture on logic. That's rich.

And ironic

R00k wrote: You're the one who said it, not me. The technical definition of assault is worth a good tasing.

I'd say the cane smack probably did more damage than the hand slap, so what's the difference here?

That's not what I said. That's what you read. But only because you're an ignorant jack ass.

I said she got tased because of everthing she did, namely noncompliance, resisting arrest and assualt.

Care to make up more bullshit or hypothetical situations to substantiate your flimsy stance?

R00k wrote: lol, a lecture on logic. That's rich.

I'm surprised you noticed.

yourgrandpa:

i think one of the core objections to the incident in question (and incidents like it) is that the function of non-lethal weapons should be an alternative to firearms, not a tool for coercion.

The function of non-lethal weapons should therefore be closely aligned with the function of lethal weapons. That is, to disable a significant threat.

The function of a gun is either to coerce someone into stepping down an aggression (i.e. point gun and threaten to shoot unless perp lets go of hostage), or to directly disable the threat (by shooting at the perp).

The function of a gun is not to coerce someone into mere compliance. You don't see cops threatening people with guns in order to get them to pick up litter, or to stop using drugs in public.

The function of a non-lethal alternative should be similar.

Now legally, the incident may be sound. That is, according to legal definitions, the incident may be valid, or consistent with law (at least on the surface).

The logic might be something like this:

if a person

i) is noncompliant
AND
ii) resists arrest as part of this noncompliance
AND
iii) assaults an officer, or someone else
OR
iv) there is a reasonable chance that the suspect poses an imminent risk to herself, or others

the use of non-lethal weapon is a legal procedure

Now, if we choose to interpret the scene in question as fitting these criteria, then sure - it's legal.

But the whole point of a penetrating discussion is to examine the nature of the situation for what it is, rather than rely on technicalities.

It is hard to take seriously the notion that slapping an officer's hand away when he goes for your phone is assault. If anything, it's a defensive gesture.

There are four factors I'm having to weigh in my mind when coming to a decision about this issue:

1. 1. Was the use of a tazer in this situation necessary, knowing that tazers can kill people with bad heart conditions or other, still unknown, health issues.
   
   2. Was the use of a tazer in this situation necessary, knowing that being shot with a tazer can be very painful and is, in nonviolent situations, a cruel and unusual way of bringing about compliance.
   
   3. Was the use of a tazer in this situation necessary, knowing that the threat of serious bodily injury the woman posed upon the officer was quite minimal.
   
   4. Was the use of a tazer in this situation necessary, knowing that the fucking obnoxious bitch with no respect for cops deserved it.

After carefully considering these four factors, it is readily clear to me that the officer's use of a tazer on this lady was justified.

I just watched Seven again. At the end, Brad Pitt was definitely justified in killing him. He was justified in unloading the whole clip IMO, and I would have done the same thing.

Since it was justified, should it be used as a precedent for the right thing to do in future situations? No.

I guess I didn't "carefully consider" my four reasonings well enough.

mjrpes wrote: ...knowing that being shot with a tazer can be very painful and is, in nonviolent situations, a cruel and unusual way of bringing about compliance.

so you're saying this was a cruel and unusual procedure.

Uhh, I'm missing the point you're making, even with the italicized hints you give.

well the situation was non violent, and the taser was being used to bring about compliance.

So according to your predicate (knowing that ...), it seems that it was cruel and unusual.

[xeno]Julios wrote:well the situation was non violent, and the taser was being used to bring about compliance.

So according to your predicate (knowing that ...), it seems that it was cruel and unusual.

Yes, yes it was. The whole tazing incident was:

1. A risk to her life
2. A cruel and unusual punishment
3. Unnecessary considering the threat she posed to the officer

But, in the end,

4. the bitch deserved it.

Remember, I have come to this conclusion after careful consideration. In no way do I feel that personal feelings or desires have come in to play.

i guess it depends on what you mean by deserve.

[xeno]Julios wrote:If i'm stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt, then does that mean people should say:

aha - fool deserved to die.

If i walk into a dangerous neighbourhood and get mugged, and get mugged, did i "deserve" it?

Sure, she knew what was coming, and was blatantly retarded - no question about that - i just find it kinda terrifying that we are sanctioning the inflicting of severe pain just because:

"she deserved it".

[xeno]Julios wrote: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.

mjrpes wrote:Remember, I have come to this conclusion after careful consideration. In no way do I feel that personal feelings or desires have come in to play.

i thought i caught a whiff earlier but wasn't sure.

[xeno]Julios wrote:i guess it depends on what you mean by deserve.

Well, I guess I have to make myself more clear.

She "deserved it" in the sense that she is a bitch, where by 'bitch' I mean a subhuman species that is NOT accorded modern day civil rights like normal human beings. Instead, subhumans like her have rights that follow the "an eye for an eye" model, where, since she acts like a bitch, she gets what's coming for her. Because she is not a real human being but a subhuman (do NOT confuse the two), normal civil rights don't apply to her and actions that come upon her do not have to be in accord with civil rights that you and I have (since we are actual, real, human beings). Action that come upon her which would go against real human being civil rights include, but are not limited to: unnecessary tazing, beating by abusive and hostile husband, crank phone calls by local radio station, etc).

I hope that clears things up.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

mjrpes wrote:Remember, I have come to this conclusion after careful consideration. In no way do I feel that personal feelings or desires have come in to play.

i thought i caught a whiff earlier but wasn't sure.

subhuman or not, I don't like the idea of causing unnecessary suffering.

edit: damnit can't delete posts - and i just saw your smiley, which confirmed the whiff factor.

[xeno]Julios wrote:subhuman or not, I don't like the idea of causing unnecessary suffering.

Bitches "deserve it" in a way that two masses in space/time are attracted to each other by a gravitational force. Even if you don't like the idea of masses being attracted to each other by a gravitational force, you have to admit that (a) it's a law of nature, (b) you can't do anything about it, and (c) in the end God made it that way so it must be good (and you must be bad). A bitch "deserving it" is indeed very similar to this: (a) it's a law of nature, (b) you can't do anything about it, and (c) God made it that way so it must be good (and you must be bad). It's pretty obvious why this is so, so I'm not going to go over it.

Julios, I would seriously consider reflecting on the "gravity" of your errors until you can become, like God, perfect in your understanding of this issue and can, one day, like me, indeed say that the "bitch deserved it."

aaaaah...ah ah ah ah ah....aaaaah.... aah......uhuhuh...ah aha ha ha aaaaaaaaaaaaah... aaah aaaah aaaah.... aaaah.


:lol:

ffs - need a fuckin sarcasm meter on these posts.

i'm not sure if you're poking fun at your own argument (and parodying those who think she deserves it), or if you're dead serious