Cop tasers teen standing on his girlfriends porch.

[Turtlesoup]

colfax_m Not in florida especially during the summer......honestly, dressed in black is very suspicious.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Show me a black cop that shot a white dude and thought it was his tazor

Why would that be important or even relevant?

Because SuperConspiracyBrother hates white people.

Just can't find it, can you?

 

[Godboy]

Show me a black cop that shot a white dude and thought it was his tazor

Why would that be important or even relevant?

Because SuperConspiracyBrother hates white people.

Just can't find it, can you?

Why would that matter? Do you expect this to happen a lot or something?

 

[ClaireH]

Police do what all the time? Zap a teen a second round while he or she has already been zapped and is lying on the ground from it, and barely moves after that knee-jerk reactive cop zaps him a second round anyway for “non-compliance”?

What is it exactly that bothers you about this case? I’ve read a lot of your posts and actually I agree with you a lot of the time. I am pro cop but that would mean pro good cop. That guy might be better suited for a desk job- not meant as a put down just a fact some people aren’t cut out to do the beat, particularly alone.

In my area, there’s been a change from the type of cops we used to have to the type that we have now - who often demonstrate going overboard. That’s not a professional cop doing his job, that is something else.

What police do all the time is force a suspect to obey their orders. Now I asked this question early in the discussion so perhaps you didn't see it. But nobody has yet to answer: if a suspect is not complying with police commands, what do you want an officer to do, say "okay, you don't have to comply, maybe another time when you're in a better mood?"

The more cities cater to criminals and weaken their police departments, the worse the crime gets, or hasn't anybody noticed?

If authority has to capitulate to the criminal element, then we no longer have any authority or a lawful society.

This is why I believe we are more in agreement about the bigger picture-yes, obey the cops- but, watching that video of that particular case that boy did comply after he was hit once. It would appear if we'd both be called for jury duty you're under the impression he didn't comply and I would state that he did. We'd be a hung jury given I'm also under the impression you'd hold out and so would I...and maybe a few others on each side.

To answer your question in specifics about what should cops do when potential perps are not complying? That still depends on the specifics but maintaining respect is the way I always treat officers. Yes, it's helped me get out of a few tickets, but I happen to be the respectful type anyway. Those potential perps who choose to reject respect are risking more penalties and it costs them nothing to show respect...even to a "hard-nosed" type cop but they can't hold their thug-life in much.

So back to your question: Are we talking a thug who just attacked someone with evidence and he's running? Zap away and hope he'll go down prior to death. If we're talking a robbery-same thing. If we're talking a potential break-in artist (assuming that's what the cop suspected when he saw that teen cutting through yards/bushes)...the dressed in black part I disregard due to the time of day. That is a style for many young kids and even most nowadays dressed with that "look" are not into gothic nor thuggery. It is debatable that a person would choose to dress in black to "not be noticed" when it makes them stand out more in daylight. So, back to my point....in this case the cop freaked out imo. Not sure why he felt that boy was a threat to him once he was on the ground, nor do I view it as a potential runner from watching the tape. So...as I said...we'd be a hung jury.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is why I believe we are more in agreement about the bigger picture-yes, obey the cops- but, watching that video of that particular case that boy did comply after he was hit once. It would appear if we'd both be called for jury duty you're under the impression he didn't comply and I would state that he did. We'd be a hung jury given I'm also under the impression you'd hold out and so would I...and maybe a few others on each side.

To answer your question in specifics about what should cops do when potential perps are not complying? That still depends on the specifics but maintaining respect is the way I always treat officers. Yes, it's helped me get out of a few tickets, but I happen to be the respectful type anyway. Those potential perps who choose to reject respect are risking more penalties and it costs them nothing to show respect...even to a "hard-nosed" type cop but they can't hold their thug-life in much.

So back to your question: Are we talking a thug who just attacked someone with evidence and he's running? Zap away and hope he'll go down prior to death. If we're talking a robbery-same thing. If we're talking a potential break-in artist (assuming that's what the cop suspected when he saw that teen cutting through yards/bushes)...the dressed in black part I disregard due to the time of day. That is a style for many young kids and even most nowadays dressed with that "look" are not into gothic nor thuggery. It is debatable that a person would choose to dress in black to "not be noticed" when it makes them stand out more in daylight. So, back to my point....in this case the cop freaked out imo. Not sure why he felt that boy was a threat to him once he was on the ground, nor do I view it as a potential runner from watching the tape. So...as I said...we'd be a hung jury.

Police are trained to do things a certain way. I'm not a cop, but what I do know from police officers I'm associated with is their first and most important priority is to secure the suspect. They either place them in cuffs and search them, or just put them against a building or car and search them. Once they are certain the subject is not armed and can't do them any harm, THEN they proceed to finding out what's going on, what their next move should be and so on.

I don't know if this kid was complying with the officer or not because it only showed from the time the kid was already tased the first time and stopped a few seconds later. I'm sure there is a reason for the severe editing. Plus you can't tell what the officer was commanding him to do over the screams of the kid. All I really heard is "you are going to get it again" and I'm sure the officer was not jolting him for shits and giggles.

But what I do know from watching police shows (I must have seen every episode of COPS) is that officers often demand the suspect lay on their belly before approaching them. If the suspect is on their belly, then there is much less of a chance of the suspect quickly pulling out a gun and trying to shoot an officer. Now if you look at this video, when the officer tased him and threatened to do it again, he was on his back. Then, there was a splice in the recording, and the next scene was the kid on his belly with the cuffs on.

 

[Rigby5]

Absolutely not.
You can only search someone if you saw them commit a crime or if there is a warrant out for them so they can be arrested.
The cop violated half a dozen laws.

Then I would guess you never heard of the law reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion has to be based on something real, like an APB of a home burglary suspect spotted in the area, matching his description.
There has to be proof of a real crime, and some reason why the person is of suspicion, other than race.
There was no evidence of any crime, nor any reason to suspect this person of that crime.
Therefore there can be no reasonable suspicion in this case.
This was ONLY based on race.
Nothing else.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Absolutely not.
You can only search someone if you saw them commit a crime or if there is a warrant out for them so they can be arrested.
The cop violated half a dozen laws.

Then I would guess you never heard of the law reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion has to be based on something real, like an APB of a home burglary suspect spotted in the area, matching his description.
There has to be proof of a real crime, and some reason why the person is of suspicion, other than race.
There was no evidence of any crime, nor any reason to suspect this person of that crime.
Therefore there can be no reasonable suspicion in this case.
This was ONLY based on race.
Nothing else.

If a suspect is not complying with the orders of the officer, that's suspicious right there. Most people do comply with police and when they don't, there is usually a reason for it. Reasonable suspicion.

 

[Rigby5]

This is why I believe we are more in agreement about the bigger picture-yes, obey the cops- but, watching that video of that particular case that boy did comply after he was hit once. It would appear if we'd both be called for jury duty you're under the impression he didn't comply and I would state that he did. We'd be a hung jury given I'm also under the impression you'd hold out and so would I...and maybe a few others on each side.

To answer your question in specifics about what should cops do when potential perps are not complying? That still depends on the specifics but maintaining respect is the way I always treat officers. Yes, it's helped me get out of a few tickets, but I happen to be the respectful type anyway. Those potential perps who choose to reject respect are risking more penalties and it costs them nothing to show respect...even to a "hard-nosed" type cop but they can't hold their thug-life in much.

So back to your question: Are we talking a thug who just attacked someone with evidence and he's running? Zap away and hope he'll go down prior to death. If we're talking a robbery-same thing. If we're talking a potential break-in artist (assuming that's what the cop suspected when he saw that teen cutting through yards/bushes)...the dressed in black part I disregard due to the time of day. That is a style for many young kids and even most nowadays dressed with that "look" are not into gothic nor thuggery. It is debatable that a person would choose to dress in black to "not be noticed" when it makes them stand out more in daylight. So, back to my point....in this case the cop freaked out imo. Not sure why he felt that boy was a threat to him once he was on the ground, nor do I view it as a potential runner from watching the tape. So...as I said...we'd be a hung jury.

Police are trained to do things a certain way. I'm not a cop, but what I do know from police officers I'm associated with is their first and most important priority is to secure the suspect. They either place them in cuffs and search them, or just put them against a building or car and search them. Once they are certain the subject is not armed and can't do them any harm, THEN they proceed to finding out what's going on, what their next move should be and so on.

I don't know if this kid was complying with the officer or not because it only showed from the time the kid was already tased the first time and stopped a few seconds later. I'm sure there is a reason for the severe editing. Plus you can't tell what the officer was commanding him to do over the screams of the kid. All I really heard is "you are going to get it again" and I'm sure the officer was not jolting him for shits and giggles.

But what I do know from watching police shows (I must have seen every episode of COPS) is that officers often demand the suspect lay on their belly before approaching them. If the suspect is on their belly, then there is much less of a chance of the suspect quickly pulling out a gun and trying to shoot an officer. Now if you look at this video, when the officer tased him and threatened to do it again, he was on his back. Then, there was a splice in the recording, and the next scene was the kid on his belly with the cuffs on.

Absolutely not!
This kid was NOT at all a "suspect".
There was no evidence of any crime at all.
Searching and handcuffing a person is totally and completely illegal normally, and only legal if necessary as the start of an arrest procedure.
The arresting charge has to already be in mind.
And there was nothing to charge the boy with.
The fact they found some pot later, does not justify the illegal stop and search, much less the potentially deadly taser.

Again, there was no crime the cop was responding too.
He had no authority to issue any commands at all.
It was the cop who was trespassing and committing attempted murder of an innocent person.

 

[ClaireH]

This is why I believe we are more in agreement about the bigger picture-yes, obey the cops- but, watching that video of that particular case that boy did comply after he was hit once. It would appear if we'd both be called for jury duty you're under the impression he didn't comply and I would state that he did. We'd be a hung jury given I'm also under the impression you'd hold out and so would I...and maybe a few others on each side.

To answer your question in specifics about what should cops do when potential perps are not complying? That still depends on the specifics but maintaining respect is the way I always treat officers. Yes, it's helped me get out of a few tickets, but I happen to be the respectful type anyway. Those potential perps who choose to reject respect are risking more penalties and it costs them nothing to show respect...even to a "hard-nosed" type cop but they can't hold their thug-life in much.

So back to your question: Are we talking a thug who just attacked someone with evidence and he's running? Zap away and hope he'll go down prior to death. If we're talking a robbery-same thing. If we're talking a potential break-in artist (assuming that's what the cop suspected when he saw that teen cutting through yards/bushes)...the dressed in black part I disregard due to the time of day. That is a style for many young kids and even most nowadays dressed with that "look" are not into gothic nor thuggery. It is debatable that a person would choose to dress in black to "not be noticed" when it makes them stand out more in daylight. So, back to my point....in this case the cop freaked out imo. Not sure why he felt that boy was a threat to him once he was on the ground, nor do I view it as a potential runner from watching the tape. So...as I said...we'd be a hung jury.

Police are trained to do things a certain way. I'm not a cop, but what I do know from police officers I'm associated with is their first and most important priority is to secure the suspect. They either place them in cuffs and search them, or just put them against a building or car and search them. Once they are certain the subject is not armed and can't do them any harm, THEN they proceed to finding out what's going on, what their next move should be and so on.

I don't know if this kid was complying with the officer or not because it only showed from the time the kid was already tased the first time and stopped a few seconds later. I'm sure there is a reason for the severe editing. Plus you can't tell what the officer was commanding him to do over the screams of the kid. All I really heard is "you are going to get it again" and I'm sure the officer was not jolting him for shits and giggles.

But what I do know from watching police shows (I must have seen every episode of COPS) is that officers often demand the suspect lay on their belly before approaching them. If the suspect is on their belly, then there is much less of a chance of the suspect quickly pulling out a gun and trying to shoot an officer. Now if you look at this video, when the officer tased him and threatened to do it again, he was on his back. Then, there was a splice in the recording, and the next scene was the kid on his belly with the cuffs on.

That was the instruction from my best attempt re-watching/listening to the footage-he told him to switch from side position to belly position. Even if the kid didn't do it quick enough, it was still overkill. It would have been bad for the cop had that second voltage killed him. It COULD have happened as you likely know. The cop was mad the kid had stayed on his phone and so acted in anger zapping him the second time is my opinion. NO reason for it, the first time was questionable but I await more evidence/possible footage of what happened prior.

We'd have a similar mess as what played out with Chauvin, but a dead teen is worse than a dead known criminal in the public view and in mine admittedly. I don't consider taking a golf cart for a joy ride to be much of a crime...yes a crime and he paid the consequences for it reportedly. This had nothing to do with that history and again, had the cop only zapped him once and there was a valid reason to do so (which was not shown on tape) I would understand more if the kid did more to aggravate the cop somehow, but it would depend on what it was to provoke the need for tasering. Second round was overkill, anyway you look at it. The kid was flat on the ground, curled up and sounded like he was crying...not a threat.

You're right. This is only partial evidence. They need to start enforcing body cams or maybe that hasn't come out yet and will. I hope it does so we'll have full information as is needed with all cases.

After reading Rigby's post, I've changed my mind about using the human zapper. Overkill...first time around without having knowledge of what happened prior other than the kid reportedly on his phone (likely calling his gf to answer the door asap to prove he was who he said he was). More training needed about using tasers and when not to not using tasers is needed.

 

[Rigby5]

Absolutely not.
You can only search someone if you saw them commit a crime or if there is a warrant out for them so they can be arrested.
The cop violated half a dozen laws.

Then I would guess you never heard of the law reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion has to be based on something real, like an APB of a home burglary suspect spotted in the area, matching his description.
There has to be proof of a real crime, and some reason why the person is of suspicion, other than race.
There was no evidence of any crime, nor any reason to suspect this person of that crime.
Therefore there can be no reasonable suspicion in this case.
This was ONLY based on race.
Nothing else.

If a suspect is not complying with the orders of the officer, that's suspicious right there. Most people do comply with police and when they don't, there is usually a reason for it. Reasonable suspicion.

Wrong.
Many times police have told me to get on the ground, and I have NEVER done it.
They do not have that authority and it is NOT at all suspicious to refuse illegal orders from a cop.
No innocent person would EVER get down on the ground.
And "reasonable suspicion" has to combine a known crime with a probable match of appearance.
It does not at all mean just in the suspicious mind of the cop.
There has to be factual basis for the suspicion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.
Many times police have told me to get on the ground, and I have NEVER done it.
They do not have that authority and it is NOT at all suspicious to refuse illegal orders from a cop.
No innocent person would EVER get down on the ground.
And "reasonable suspicion" has to combine a known crime with a probable match of appearance.
It does not at all mean just in the suspicious mind of the cop.
There has to be factual basis for the suspicion.

As I stated, that factual suspicion is the suspect not complying with police orders. I'm 61 years old and have never been ordered to the ground by a police officer in my life. Your statement of "many times" kind of tells me what kind of life you led.

 

[Rigby5]

This is why I believe we are more in agreement about the bigger picture-yes, obey the cops- but, watching that video of that particular case that boy did comply after he was hit once. It would appear if we'd both be called for jury duty you're under the impression he didn't comply and I would state that he did. We'd be a hung jury given I'm also under the impression you'd hold out and so would I...and maybe a few others on each side.

To answer your question in specifics about what should cops do when potential perps are not complying? That still depends on the specifics but maintaining respect is the way I always treat officers. Yes, it's helped me get out of a few tickets, but I happen to be the respectful type anyway. Those potential perps who choose to reject respect are risking more penalties and it costs them nothing to show respect...even to a "hard-nosed" type cop but they can't hold their thug-life in much.

So back to your question: Are we talking a thug who just attacked someone with evidence and he's running? Zap away and hope he'll go down prior to death. If we're talking a robbery-same thing. If we're talking a potential break-in artist (assuming that's what the cop suspected when he saw that teen cutting through yards/bushes)...the dressed in black part I disregard due to the time of day. That is a style for many young kids and even most nowadays dressed with that "look" are not into gothic nor thuggery. It is debatable that a person would choose to dress in black to "not be noticed" when it makes them stand out more in daylight. So, back to my point....in this case the cop freaked out imo. Not sure why he felt that boy was a threat to him once he was on the ground, nor do I view it as a potential runner from watching the tape. So...as I said...we'd be a hung jury.

Police are trained to do things a certain way. I'm not a cop, but what I do know from police officers I'm associated with is their first and most important priority is to secure the suspect. They either place them in cuffs and search them, or just put them against a building or car and search them. Once they are certain the subject is not armed and can't do them any harm, THEN they proceed to finding out what's going on, what their next move should be and so on.

I don't know if this kid was complying with the officer or not because it only showed from the time the kid was already tased the first time and stopped a few seconds later. I'm sure there is a reason for the severe editing. Plus you can't tell what the officer was commanding him to do over the screams of the kid. All I really heard is "you are going to get it again" and I'm sure the officer was not jolting him for shits and giggles.

But what I do know from watching police shows (I must have seen every episode of COPS) is that officers often demand the suspect lay on their belly before approaching them. If the suspect is on their belly, then there is much less of a chance of the suspect quickly pulling out a gun and trying to shoot an officer. Now if you look at this video, when the officer tased him and threatened to do it again, he was on his back. Then, there was a splice in the recording, and the next scene was the kid on his belly with the cuffs on.

That was the instruction from my best attempt re-watching/listening to the footage-he told him to switch from side position to belly position. Even if the kid didn't do it quick enough, it was still overkill. It would have been bad for the cop had that second voltage killed him. It COULD have happened as you likely know. We'd have a similar mess as what played out with Chauvin, but a dead teen is worse than a dead known criminal in the public view and in mine admittedly. I don't consider taking a golf cart for a joy ride to be much of a crime...yes a crime and he paid the consequences for it reportedly. This had nothing to do with that history and again, had the cop only zapped him once I would not have a problem with it. It was overkill anyway you look at it. The kid was flat on the ground, almost crying.

You're right. This is only partial evidence. They need to start enforcing body cams or maybe that hasn't come out yet and will. I hope it does so we'll have full information as is needed with all cases.

WRONG!
The zap with the taser is illegal attempted murder unless the cop feels his life in in danger.
Taser ARE DEADLY FORCE, and can not legally be used to enforce compliance with orders.
The fact tasers rarely kill is not relevant to the fact they have and can kill.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Many times police have told me to get on the ground, and I have NEVER done it.
They do not have that authority and it is NOT at all suspicious to refuse illegal orders from a cop.
No innocent person would EVER get down on the ground.
And "reasonable suspicion" has to combine a known crime with a probable match of appearance.
It does not at all mean just in the suspicious mind of the cop.
There has to be factual basis for the suspicion.

As I stated, that factual suspicion is the suspect not complying with police orders. I'm 61 years old and have never been ordered to the ground by a police officer in my life. Your statement of "many times" kind of tells me what kind of life you led.

Wrong.
The life I lead is from doing all my own work, which means driving the old beater pickup to the dump with renovation debris, while wearing paint splotched cammo.
I have never done anything remotely suspicious.

And it was not at all suspicious for the kid to not comply with the cop's orders in this case, because he clearly was texting before, during, and after the cop started yelling orders.
And that is not even remotely suspicious.
Clearly he was attempting to get the occupant of the home to come verify his identity.
It was illegal for the cop to at all interfere, trespass, tase, or do anything, since there was not even the remotest hint of a crime.

 

[Markle]

He was trespassing through various other properties.
He had drugs on him.
Was on parole for being a thief and a joyrider.
Wouldn't obey Police instruction.

But yeah.

White supremacy.

And he was Black.

Exactly, no white person would be so ignorant to do all the stupid things this black dreg did.

What exactly did he do that made the cop go after him anyway?

He cut across someones lawn en route to his girlfriends house. A bollocking might have been in order. Maybe.

Multiple lawns, trespassing, dressed suspiciously in all black.

Then ignored police instruction.

Well, there you have it. He should have just apologized, which is what innocent people do. He had the demeanor of a criminal so he was treated as such. Im glad they caught him.

Wrong.
He committed no crime and was not a criminal.
The only thing he got charged with was the pot, which was an illegal search, since the cop had no probable cause.

Resisting being detained and searched is illegal. The cop had every reason to search him.

Absolutely not.
You can only search someone if you saw them commit a crime or if there is a warrant out for them so they can be arrested.
The cop violated half a dozen laws.

Are you simply being a troll are you actually that ignorant?

Police, and rightfully so, can search you if they have probable cause. Someone cutting through the back yards of houses is probable cause.

As is the case 99.9% all the kid had to do was be courteous and comply with the officer and nothing would have happened. Instead, the kid wanted to be a smart ass and show off for his girlfriend. Stuff happens, live and learn, move on.

 

[Markle]

Police can use force if the subject is being non-compliant.

You and Markle fail to understand the absurdity of your position that a police officer can be the initiator of physical confrontation through use of a taser towards an individual showing no threat to anybody's safety. Seems to me that common sense should be self-evident, but since it's not.....

View attachment 506116​

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

So sure, police can use force. But it sure isn't the case that their option of force is carte blanche.

THANK YOU!

Previously you stated that they could only use a stun gun in self-defense. You must have choked to post that you were 100% wrong. I commend you for your honesty. A rare thing among the far-left!

943.1717 Use of dart-firing stun guns.—
(1) A decision by a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer to use a dart-firing stun gun must involve an arrest or a custodial situation during which the person who is the subject of the arrest or custody escalates resistance to the officer from passive physical resistance to active physical resistance and the person:
(a) Has the apparent ability to physically threaten the officer or others; or
(b) Is preparing or attempting to flee or escape.
(2) The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission shall establish standards for instructing law enforcement, correctional, and correctional probation officers in the use of dart-firing stun guns. The instructional standards must include the effect that a dart-firing stun gun may have on a person.

 

[Markle]

This is why I believe we are more in agreement about the bigger picture-yes, obey the cops- but, watching that video of that particular case that boy did comply after he was hit once. It would appear if we'd both be called for jury duty you're under the impression he didn't comply and I would state that he did. We'd be a hung jury given I'm also under the impression you'd hold out and so would I...and maybe a few others on each side.

To answer your question in specifics about what should cops do when potential perps are not complying? That still depends on the specifics but maintaining respect is the way I always treat officers. Yes, it's helped me get out of a few tickets, but I happen to be the respectful type anyway. Those potential perps who choose to reject respect are risking more penalties and it costs them nothing to show respect...even to a "hard-nosed" type cop but they can't hold their thug-life in much.

So back to your question: Are we talking a thug who just attacked someone with evidence and he's running? Zap away and hope he'll go down prior to death. If we're talking a robbery-same thing. If we're talking a potential break-in artist (assuming that's what the cop suspected when he saw that teen cutting through yards/bushes)...the dressed in black part I disregard due to the time of day. That is a style for many young kids and even most nowadays dressed with that "look" are not into gothic nor thuggery. It is debatable that a person would choose to dress in black to "not be noticed" when it makes them stand out more in daylight. So, back to my point....in this case the cop freaked out imo. Not sure why he felt that boy was a threat to him once he was on the ground, nor do I view it as a potential runner from watching the tape. So...as I said...we'd be a hung jury.

Police are trained to do things a certain way. I'm not a cop, but what I do know from police officers I'm associated with is their first and most important priority is to secure the suspect. They either place them in cuffs and search them, or just put them against a building or car and search them. Once they are certain the subject is not armed and can't do them any harm, THEN they proceed to finding out what's going on, what their next move should be and so on.

I don't know if this kid was complying with the officer or not because it only showed from the time the kid was already tased the first time and stopped a few seconds later. I'm sure there is a reason for the severe editing. Plus you can't tell what the officer was commanding him to do over the screams of the kid. All I really heard is "you are going to get it again" and I'm sure the officer was not jolting him for shits and giggles.

But what I do know from watching police shows (I must have seen every episode of COPS) is that officers often demand the suspect lay on their belly before approaching them. If the suspect is on their belly, then there is much less of a chance of the suspect quickly pulling out a gun and trying to shoot an officer. Now if you look at this video, when the officer tased him and threatened to do it again, he was on his back. Then, there was a splice in the recording, and the next scene was the kid on his belly with the cuffs on.

That was the instruction from my best attempt re-watching/listening to the footage-he told him to switch from side position to belly position. Even if the kid didn't do it quick enough, it was still overkill. It would have been bad for the cop had that second voltage killed him. It COULD have happened as you likely know. We'd have a similar mess as what played out with Chauvin, but a dead teen is worse than a dead known criminal in the public view and in mine admittedly. I don't consider taking a golf cart for a joy ride to be much of a crime...yes a crime and he paid the consequences for it reportedly. This had nothing to do with that history and again, had the cop only zapped him once I would not have a problem with it. It was overkill anyway you look at it. The kid was flat on the ground, almost crying.

You're right. This is only partial evidence. They need to start enforcing body cams or maybe that hasn't come out yet and will. I hope it does so we'll have full information as is needed with all cases.

WRONG!
The zap with the taser is illegal attempted murder unless the cop feels his life in in danger.
Taser ARE DEADLY FORCE, and can not legally be used to enforce compliance with orders.
The fact tasers rarely kill is not relevant to the fact they have and can kill.

 

[Markle]

Reasonable suspicion has to be based on something real, like an APB of a home burglary suspect spotted in the area, matching his description.
There has to be proof of a real crime, and some reason why the person is of suspicion, other than race.
There was no evidence of any crime, nor any reason to suspect this person of that crime.
Therefore there can be no reasonable suspicion in this case.
This was ONLY based on race.
Nothing else.

That's just foolish.

The kid had been trespassing.

QED

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Show me a black cop that shot a white dude and thought it was his tazor

Why would that be important or even relevant?

Because SuperConspiracyBrother hates white people.

Just can't find it, can you?

Why would that matter? Do you expect this to happen a lot or something?

Answer the question, how many times?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong.
The life I lead is from doing all my own work, which means driving the old beater pickup to the dump with renovation debris, while wearing paint splotched cammo.
I have never done anything remotely suspicious.

And it was not at all suspicious for the kid to not comply with the cop's orders in this case, because he clearly was texting before, during, and after the cop started yelling orders.
And that is not even remotely suspicious.
Clearly he was attempting to get the occupant of the home to come verify his identity.
It was illegal for the cop to at all interfere, trespass, tase, or do anything, since there was not even the remotest hint of a crime.

I've seen people in various outfits and trucks like yours, but I've never seen an officer order anybody to the ground because of it, especially "many times" as you stated. When I was younger I had long hair, wore an army jacket, tied died tee shirt, bell bottom jeans, and drove around in my old 1968 Malibu. Not once did an officer tell me to get on the ground, even when I smelled from beer.

Also when I was a kid, I never needed to text anybody to come to the door because there as no such thing as a cell phone. We knocked on the door or rang the bell.

If he was texting before, during and after the officer was giving him orders and he ignored him, then yes, that's suspicious right there. Most people don't do that unless they are intoxicated. Officers use tasers to force a suspect to their commands when they won't do so willingly. Taser deployment is not a national policy, but a departmental policy.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Charges dropped against biracial teen who was tased by Florida trooper outside girlfriend's home

The state of Florida will not pursue charges against a biracial teenager who was tased by a state trooper outside his girlfriend's home last month, in an incident caught on surveillance video that sparked widespread outrage. The video showed Jack Rodeman, 16, standing on the back porch of his...

www.rawstory.com

No charges. Now they need to go after the cop and the corrupt system that locked this innocent kid up.