User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 72

  1. #31
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by miked277 View Post
    if anything he was extra lenient with her in the beginning when he shoved her away from her truck and the road and allowed her to argue with him in close proximity without first physically restraining her.

    if this were a young man who was doing the bantering and disobeying he would have been down on the ground after the first sign of noncompliance. police are very careful to not let themselves get into any situation which might compromise their own security, and rightly so.
    I agree. The officer was not in control of the situation until he tasered her, that was poor on his behalf, he continued to move backwards as she stepped into him, she was in control and knew it, he did not assert his authority.

    Maybe if he was more forceful and less passive in the beginning it would not have been needed but at either rate it is non-lethal force and she sustained no injuries. Imo he treated her differently because of her age, he didn't consider her a strong enough threat to him initially but he should have as her actions were putting them both in danger.

    All this for a speeding ticket seems ludicrous.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    I think the cop acted properly. An enraged granny with a self-righteous, combative attitude is not necessarily harmless. She could have pulled out a weapon. She could have pushed him into the path of a speeding car. She could have went back into her car blinded by rage and crashed it into someone else. It was his duty as a cop to control the situation. She don't deserve a taxpayer money. (assuming she's planning to sue)

  3. #33
    Member Vildechaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Sounds like a case of 'roid rage to me. A lot of officers use steroids with awesome results, but they do have a few nasty side effects.(a bad temper is one of the worst)
    INtP...RCUEI primary I...5w4...INTp... ILI...The Artist Formerly Known As Car!ssa

  4. #34
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Those Americans who are rushing to defend the officer's behaviour on the basis of her "noncompliance" could do with asking themselves one question: are the police supposed to be our servants, or our masters? I am not aware that she had comitted any crime which constituted an arrestable offence; nor was her behaviour a direct threat to the officer's personal safety or anyone else's; nor did he appear to be attempting to arrest her (with the clear verbal statement to that effect which was appropriate in the circumstances - if I was unclear watching the video several times it's not surprising if she was) so much as losing his cool and using physical and verbal intimidation to try to get the respect that he thought he deserved.

    He was not warning her that he was going to use the tazer, he was threatening her with it - there is a distinct difference. He also, supposing physical force was justified, failed to take advantage of the very simple opportunity he had, made even simpler by the disparity in their size, age, and strength, and the position he was in, to simply immobolise her when he already had hold of her. (I believe officers recieve training in this sort of thing, as well as in shooting and electrocuting people, do they not?) He chose not to in favour of shoving her aggressively *thus upsetting her more while achieving precisely nothing*, yelling at her aggressively *ditto*, and eventually using the tazer. Never mind the law of the land and the duty of the officer to enforce it: it had become a personal confrontation, and about the affront to the officer's ego that was given by her unwillingness to obey him.

    This is unacceptable, disproportionate, and unprofessional behaviour, until such time as "giving lip to a police officer" is accounted a crime, and the officer accounted judge, jury, and executioner of the offense. In a police state where the police are in charge they may demand respect and obedience and enforce this demand with sanctioned force; in a functional democracy in which they are the servants of the people they may request it, but have no right to insist with the threat of violence, let alone use deadly force where this is not clearly proportional to the situation. And let's be honest, it wasn't here. The tazer was used out of spite and frustration, not in self defense, to protect others, or because it was his only remaining resort.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  5. #35
    Senior Member miked277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Those Americans who are rushing to defend the officer's behaviour on the basis of her "noncompliance" could do with asking themselves one question: are the police supposed to be our servants, or our masters? I am not aware that she had comitted any crime which constituted an arrestable offence; nor was her behaviour a direct threat to the officer's personal safety or anyone else's; nor did he appear to be attempting to arrest her (with the clear verbal statement to that effect which was appropriate in the circumstances - if I was unclear watching the video several times it's not surprising if she was) so much as losing his cool and using physical and verbal intimidation to try to get the respect that he thought he deserved.

    He was not warning her that he was going to use the tazer, he was threatening her with it - there is a distinct difference. He also, supposing physical force was justified, failed to take advantage of the very simple opportunity he had, made even simpler by the disparity in their size, age, and strength, and the position he was in, to simply immobolise her when he already had hold of her. (I believe officers recieve training in this sort of thing, as well as in shooting and electrocuting people, do they not?) He chose not to in favour of shoving her aggressively *thus upsetting her more while achieving precisely nothing*, yelling at her aggressively *ditto*, and eventually using the tazer. Never mind the law of the land and the duty of the officer to enforce it: it had become a personal confrontation, and about the affront to the officer's ego that was given by her unwillingness to obey him.

    This is unacceptable, disproportionate, and unprofessional behaviour, until such time as "giving lip to a police officer" is accounted a crime, and the officer accounted judge, jury, and executioner of the offense. In a police state where the police are in charge they may demand respect and obedience and enforce this demand with sanctioned force; in a functional democracy in which they are the servants of the people they may request it, but have no right to insist with the threat of violence, let alone use deadly force where this is not clearly proportional to the situation. And let's be honest, it wasn't here. The tazer was used out of spite and frustration, not in self defense, to protect others, or because it was his only remaining resort.
    the police serve law obiding citizens by dealing with the law breaking citizens. this is what they are paid to do.

    the lady refused to sign her ticket (which admitedly is a silly requirement), asked to be taken to jail instead and when she realized that the police officer was actually going to do as much she then resisted arrest.

    [sarcasm]on second thought, you're absolutely right... people who get pulled over and throw a tantrum should be allowed to act all crazy, push up on a police officer and claim immunity based on age. i mean, the laws, they're not really *that* important. they're mostly guidelines which, if they please us, we will follow them. if we find them to be burdensome and get caught breaking them, we should be allowed to get off the hook. after all, the police have guns. it's not like they're ever in any danger. the police should be able to tell just by intuition which people are dangerous and which should be allowed to break the law. after all, how are they serving us if they continually call us on all those silly rules of traffic. they are not our masters, we are their masters. they can arrest us when and only when we agree to it. who would ever want to live in a society subject to rules and regulations. not me, that's for sure. i want to be able to do as i please, and as i get older i want to be able to do more. yes, this all sounds good.[/sarcasm]
    I'm feeling rough, I'm feeling raw, I'm in the prime of my life.

  6. #36
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by miked277 View Post
    the police serve law obiding citizens by dealing with the law breaking citizens. this is what they are paid to do.
    In an appropriate and professional manner, yes. This wasn't for the reasons I have just detailed.

    the lady refused to sign her ticket (which admitedly is a silly requirement), asked to be taken to jail instead and when she realized that the police officer was actually going to do as much she then resisted arrest.
    *see my previous comment*

    [sarcasm]on second thought, you're absolutely right... people who get pulled over and throw a tantrum should be allowed to act all crazy, push up on a police officer and claim immunity based on age. i mean, the laws, they're not really *that* important. they're mostly guidelines which, if they please us, we will follow them. if we find them to be burdensome and get caught breaking them, we should be allowed to get off the hook. after all, the police have guns. it's not like they're ever in any danger. the police should be able to tell just by intuition which people are dangerous and which should be allowed to break the law. after all, how are they serving us if they continually call us on all those silly rules of traffic. they are not our masters, we are their masters. they can arrest us when and only when we agree to it. who would ever want to live in a society subject to rules and regulations. not me, that's for sure. i want to be able to do as i please, and as i get older i want to be able to do more. yes, this all sounds good.[/sarcasm]


    Could you please try to actually express that in a sensible and coherent manner, then I might want to get back to you.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  7. #37
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    are the police supposed to be our servants, or our masters?
    Neither actually. They are there for everyone’s safety and they serve (and protect) the community as a whole but they are not servants in the respect that they do not obey the commands of citizens, they uphold the law and follow the directives of their superiors.

    I am not aware that she had comitted any crime which constituted an arrestable offence;
    I understand it is a legal requirement to sign a ticket in the US as a promise to appear in court, refusing to sign means the officer is supposed to take you to the courthouse where you will be detained you until a judge is available. If you refuse to comply with signing the ticket or going with the officer then you are resisting arrest… which is another crime and you will be arrested for this.

    She refused to sign and made clear attempts to get back in her vehicle which is an indication of her refusal to allow him to carry out his lawful requirements.

    nor was her behaviour a direct threat to the officer's personal safety or anyone else's;
    Oncoming traffic is a threat.

    nor did he appear to be attempting to arrest her
    He wasn't, he was trying to get her to comply and sign the ticket.

    He was not warning her that he was going to use the tazer, he was threatening her with it - there is a distinct difference.
    How would you like it phrased? "Pretty please, would you mind not doing that or I may have to tazer you?"

    He warned her 5 times that if she didn't comply that he would tazer her, her response was go on then. If you really want to insist that police are servants then he simply complied with her request, I'd think you'd be happy with that

    in a functional democracy in which they are the servants of the people they may request it, but have no right to insist with the threat of violence, let alone use deadly force where this is not clearly proportional to the situation.
    Erm, first, the force was not deadly but secondly, yes they can demand compliance.

  8. #38
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trinity View Post
    Neither actually. They are there for everyone’s safety and they serve (and protect) the community as a whole but they are not servants in the respect that they do not obey the commands of citizens, they uphold the law and follow the directives of their superiors.
    Well, I'll be dammed! There was me thinking that I could just tell 'em to go jump of a bridge and they would! But, seriously, they are PUBLIC servants, are they not? Are you disputing the concept of public service by government employees in the specific case of the police or merely setting up a particularly silly straw man to take a cheap shot at?


    I understand it is a legal requirement to sign a ticket in the US as a promise to appear in court, refusing to sign means the officer is supposed to take you to the courthouse where you will be detained you until a judge is available. If you refuse to comply with signing the ticket or going with the officer then you are resisting arrest… which is another crime and you will be arrested for this.

    She refused to sign and made clear attempts to get back in her vehicle which is an indication of her refusal to allow him to carry out his lawful requirements.
    You seem to imply that at this point she was breaking the law. So, as I stated, he could have arrested her, if necessary immobilising her using appropriate force at that moment. He did not do so.


    Oncoming traffic is a threat.
    Looking at the video that didn't appear to be his primary concern, though it might be construed to be so if you are really determined to find some hypothetical grounds to defend him on. Or were we watching different videos?


    He wasn't, he was trying to get her to comply and sign the ticket.
    So in that case why did he have the right to use violence to exact that compliance?

    How would you like it phrased? "Pretty please, would you mind not doing that or I may have to tazer you?"
    LOL. The point I have already made is that he didn't have to at all.

    He warned her 5 times that if she didn't comply that he would tazer her, her response was go on then.
    Comply with what? Signing the piece of paper? If public servants are going to use extreme and potentially deadly force against citizens they need to be clear on what grounds they're doing so. He wasn't. I am unconvinced that he actually had realistic grounds for taking the action that he did.

    If you really want to insist that police are servants then he simply complied with her request, I'd think you'd be happy with that
    I refer you to my first comment above. That one needs to go to see the Wizard for some brains

    Erm, first, the force was not deadly but secondly, yes they can demand compliance.
    If they are making an arrest or conducting a search on reasonable grounds they can, and use force to in support of this, but he was doing neither. And, yes, tasers are potentially deadly and the potential increases with her age and the liklihood of accociated health problems.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  9. #39
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    But, seriously, they are PUBLIC servants, are they not?
    Public servant and servant do not have the same meaning and are not interchangeable. You asked if they were our servants or our masters and they are neither.

    Wiki - Public servants.

    You seem to imply that at this point she was breaking the law. So, as I stated, he could have arrested her, if necessary immobilising her using appropriate force at that moment. He did not do so.
    I was wrong with one thing, after watching the video again I take back what I said earlier about him not arresting her but simply getting her to sign the ticket, the reason he got her out of the car was so he could arrest her. Like I said, don't sign the ticket and the officer has to take you to see a judge immediately.

    Looking at the video that didn't appear to be his primary concern, though it might be construed to be so if you are really determined to find some hypothetical grounds to defend him on. Or were we watching different videos?
    Yes I do suspect that you're watching a different video.

    The reason he taserod her was because she wouldn’t step back, his warning was “step back or you’re going to get tasored” his primary concern was getting her away from the traffic, that's why he yelled at her to get back and pushed her back when she ignored, she is the one who seems unaware of the traffic.

  10. #40
    Perfect Gentleman! =D d@v3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Posts
    2,830

    Default

    Ah yes, I just recently saw that video on TV I think. Anyway, that lady had it coming to her. Besides, she asked for it.... literally. AND she was warned SEVERAL times that it was coming and to stop acting belligerent.
    Freedom Isn't Free. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-2007, 07:35 AM
  3. Just stopping by
    By marm in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 09:21 AM
  4. The Great Blog Transplant - Sign up now!
    By cafe in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-28-2007, 10:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO