Don't tase me bro!

[Sweet Willy]

OK, I read the link and this guy had an iron bar and a piece of broken glass. Doesn't look like a traffic stop being elevated to a tasering.

 

[Diuretic]

If it was deployed 28 times and there isn't some explanation (and a damn good one) concerning malfunction (and I do note in the report that it's mentioned that the target of those discharges wasn't identified so it might have been the deceased or it might not - not that that makes much difference to the poor bastard), yes, it was excessive, excessive to the point - on the surface at least - of criminal behaviour.

Wonder how violent the guy became? If he was being violent in the nature of brandishing a knife, I'd say he might of been shot dead anyway.

Yep, knife comes out then it's time for the handgun in response, spray or taser in that situation isn't appropriate.

 

[Sweet Willy]

If it was deployed 28 times and there isn't some explanation (and a damn good one) concerning malfunction (and I do note in the report that it's mentioned that the target of those discharges wasn't identified so it might have been the deceased or it might not - not that that makes much difference to the poor bastard), yes, it was excessive, excessive to the point - on the surface at least - of criminal behaviour.

Wonder how violent the guy became? If he was being violent in the nature of brandishing a knife, I'd say he might of been shot dead anyway.

Yep, knife comes out then it's time for the handgun in response, spray or taser in that situation isn't appropriate.

I don't know what to make of the 28 hits, if they did actually hit him 28 times. If the guy was still violent after the first few jolts I would think it's time to move along to more effective force. The stuns are obviously not working after a dozen or so, I'd say. Hopefully this guy wasn't incapacitated and continued to be tased by a malfunction of the device or some really, really screwed up officers.

It's the traffic stops that bug me. No need to be seeing non criminal, penalty/fine type stops elevated to the level of tasering unarmed people that are usually just pissed off cause they know they just hit with a fine. It's not uncommon and now instead of cooler heads prevailing, compliance is coerced with physical force where none is needed. There is a smarter and less violent way to collect fines.

 

[Diuretic]

The traffic stop examples are the sort of mission creep that I was referring to. It looks like some cops just don't like it when someone jacks them up. Well bad luck, it's going to happen and there's no need for a loss of temper because someone gets a bit smart arse.

One thing I have to say, I don't understand the US process of sign the ticket or get locked up. Here we just take details and issue the ticket (no need to sign and if someone won't accept it they can get it posted t their address) or take details and serve a summons.

But getting back to the point - using a taser to get compliance is just damn lazy but it's happening a lot. I know it's difficult to arrest someone and drag them out of a car if they're resisting. It's hard work and it looks pretty scrappy, but it's better to get other cops involved and get mob-handed rather than tasing some bugger who is going to get removed from the vehicle anyway.

 

[jgbkab]

Do you know how much it costs the tax payers to scrape someone off the pavement because they were not wearing their seat belt? Plus they have to make these laws because people are too stupid to make the right decision.

It's about that 18.4 cents a gallon that you pay. The state wants to get some of that money back and they have to have only a certain number of highway deaths or less in order to receive that money. If speeding was really a problem, the cops would stop anyone going at least 1 MPH over the speed limit because that is actually breaking the law. It won't happen because the authorities would actually lose money doing that. There is a reason you hear about the monthly highway death rate compared to previous years. C.R.E.A.M.

 

[Sweet Willy]

There is a line between traffic code and criminal code. If a particular offense like DUI is serious enough, it will be made part of the criminal code. Seat belts and speeding without recklessness (15 MPH or less over posted speed) are just revenue makers. That's it. There is no way to concieve of any knd of criminal intent for forgetting to get your inspection sticker or having a headlight go out. I can see of almost no reason to have that escalate to violence.

As I've said before, we use red light cameras to take photos of light runners and send them the ticket in the mail. And that's for running a red light. A fairly serious traffic infraction. If we can do that, why is it so God awful important to make someone sign a seatbelt ticket or else try to arrest them? The problem is obvious on so mnay of these tapes. Many of these people are already a little ticked off at seeing a fine coming and then some prick of a cop starts making short fused demands, what amount to some kind of immature, dog pack, alpha challenges. It is not just criminals that can be made to respond to these primal tactics. And the police are certainly trained to assert this type of authority. But not for some petty bullshit, not over little old ladies, children, upset Pastors and in general, decent fucking people who your only business with is to impose a fine.

 

[DiveCon]

There is a line between traffic code and criminal code. If a particular offense like DUI is serious enough, it will be made part of the criminal code. Seat belts and speeding without recklessness (15 MPH or less over posted speed) are just revenue makers. That's it. There is no way to concieve of any knd of criminal intent for forgetting to get your inspection sticker or having a headlight go out. I can see of almost no reason to have that escalate to violence.

As I've said before, we use red light cameras to take photos of light runners and send them the ticket in the mail. And that's for running a red light. A fairly serious traffic infraction. If we can do that, why is it so God awful important to make someone sign a seatbelt ticket or else try to arrest them? The problem is obvious on so mnay of these tapes. Many of these people are already a little ticked off at seeing a fine coming and then some prick of a cop starts making short fused demands, what amount to some kind of immature, dog pack, alpha challenges. It is not just criminals that can be made to respond to these primal tactics. And the police are certainly trained to assert this type of authority. But not for some petty bullshit, not over little old ladies, children, upset Pastors and in general, decent fucking people who your only business with is to impose a fine.

some states have radar cams too
i suppose you dont want cops to make any stops

 

[Sweet Willy]

There is a line between traffic code and criminal code. If a particular offense like DUI is serious enough, it will be made part of the criminal code. Seat belts and speeding without recklessness (15 MPH or less over posted speed) are just revenue makers. That's it. There is no way to concieve of any knd of criminal intent for forgetting to get your inspection sticker or having a headlight go out. I can see of almost no reason to have that escalate to violence.

As I've said before, we use red light cameras to take photos of light runners and send them the ticket in the mail. And that's for running a red light. A fairly serious traffic infraction. If we can do that, why is it so God awful important to make someone sign a seatbelt ticket or else try to arrest them? The problem is obvious on so mnay of these tapes. Many of these people are already a little ticked off at seeing a fine coming and then some prick of a cop starts making short fused demands, what amount to some kind of immature, dog pack, alpha challenges. It is not just criminals that can be made to respond to these primal tactics. And the police are certainly trained to assert this type of authority. But not for some petty bullshit, not over little old ladies, children, upset Pastors and in general, decent fucking people who your only business with is to impose a fine.

some states have radar cams too
i suppose you dont want cops to make any stops

That's troll bull shit.

Why must you frame the argument in the extreme?

 

[DiveCon]

There is a line between traffic code and criminal code. If a particular offense like DUI is serious enough, it will be made part of the criminal code. Seat belts and speeding without recklessness (15 MPH or less over posted speed) are just revenue makers. That's it. There is no way to concieve of any knd of criminal intent for forgetting to get your inspection sticker or having a headlight go out. I can see of almost no reason to have that escalate to violence.

As I've said before, we use red light cameras to take photos of light runners and send them the ticket in the mail. And that's for running a red light. A fairly serious traffic infraction. If we can do that, why is it so God awful important to make someone sign a seatbelt ticket or else try to arrest them? The problem is obvious on so mnay of these tapes. Many of these people are already a little ticked off at seeing a fine coming and then some prick of a cop starts making short fused demands, what amount to some kind of immature, dog pack, alpha challenges. It is not just criminals that can be made to respond to these primal tactics. And the police are certainly trained to assert this type of authority. But not for some petty bullshit, not over little old ladies, children, upset Pastors and in general, decent fucking people who your only business with is to impose a fine.

some states have radar cams too
i suppose you dont want cops to make any stops

That's troll bull shit.

Why must you frame the argument in the extreme?

no, thats what you are saying

 

[Sweet Willy]

some states have radar cams too
i suppose you dont want cops to make any stops

That's troll bull shit.

Why must you frame the argument in the extreme?

no, thats what you are saying

No, I'm asking for moderation in the use of force at traffic stops. In specific, stops for non criminal, traffic code stops. Especially the use of weapons.

You suugest that I wouldn't want any stops at all.

One of those ideas is the extreme, one is not.

 

[DiveCon]

That's troll bull shit.

Why must you frame the argument in the extreme?

no, thats what you are saying

No, I'm asking for moderation in the use of force at traffic stops. In specific, stops for non criminal, traffic code stops. Especially the use of weapons.

You suugest that I wouldn't want any stops at all.

One of those ideas is the extreme, one is not.

what you are failing to understand is, when it gets to the point of making an arrest, it's no different from a traffic stop than it is for any other arrest.
if a cop uses a different proceedure in a traffic stop arrest then he could be accused of being discriminatory in other arrests
thats why they have a set proceedure to follow
you resist arrest, you get tasered

 

[KittenKoder]

That's troll bull shit.

Why must you frame the argument in the extreme?

no, thats what you are saying

No, I'm asking for moderation in the use of force at traffic stops. In specific, stops for non criminal, traffic code stops. Especially the use of weapons.

You suugest that I wouldn't want any stops at all.

One of those ideas is the extreme, one is not.

First, breaking the law makes you a criminal, period.

Secondly, you do realize that that one ton of steel traveling at high velocity is one of the most dangerous weapons you can legally own ... right?

Thirdly, you ignore the danger you criminals pose to pedestrians and disregard their safety altogether, if you are willing to break a small and simple law, such as seat belts, then there is no telling what other laws you will break as well.

 

[jgbkab]

First, breaking the law makes you a criminal, period.

If the person was sitting in a parked car in a parking lot on private property, no law was broken, period.

Secondly, you do realize that that one ton of steel traveling at high velocity is one of the most dangerous weapons you can legally own ... right?

Wrong! When you use a vehicle to intentionally commit manslaughter, it's a weapon. When you're driving 65 in a 55, it's not. That's why you're issued a speeding ticket and not a warrant for attempted murder.

Thirdly, you ignore the danger you criminals pose to pedestrians and disregard their safety altogether, if you are willing to break a small and simple law, such as seat belts, then there is no telling what other laws you will break as well.

So since I refuse to wear a seat belt, I'm more of a threat to mug someone walking down the street? Not all roadways have pedestrians. Your fucking arguments are two things...dumb and dumber.

 

[KittenKoder]

First, breaking the law makes you a criminal, period.

If the person was sitting in a parked car in a parking lot on private property, no law was broken, period.

Secondly, you do realize that that one ton of steel traveling at high velocity is one of the most dangerous weapons you can legally own ... right?

Wrong! When you use a vehicle to intentionally commit manslaughter, it's a weapon. When you're driving 65 in a 55, it's not. That's why you're issued a speeding ticket and not a warrant for attempted murder.

Thirdly, you ignore the danger you criminals pose to pedestrians and disregard their safety altogether, if you are willing to break a small and simple law, such as seat belts, then there is no telling what other laws you will break as well.

So since I refuse to wear a seat belt, I'm more of a threat to mug someone walking down the street? Not all roadways have pedestrians. Your fucking arguments are two things...dumb and dumber.

If you are speeding you are intentionally risking other people's lives for your own selfish desires, plain and simple.

 

[jgbkab]

First, breaking the law makes you a criminal, period.

If the person was sitting in a parked car in a parking lot on private property, no law was broken, period.



Wrong! When you use a vehicle to intentionally commit manslaughter, it's a weapon. When you're driving 65 in a 55, it's not. That's why you're issued a speeding ticket and not a warrant for attempted murder.

Thirdly, you ignore the danger you criminals pose to pedestrians and disregard their safety altogether, if you are willing to break a small and simple law, such as seat belts, then there is no telling what other laws you will break as well.

So since I refuse to wear a seat belt, I'm more of a threat to mug someone walking down the street? Not all roadways have pedestrians. Your fucking arguments are two things...dumb and dumber.

If you are speeding you are intentionally risking other people's lives for your own selfish desires, plain and simple.

Just driving will intentionally risk lives. A vehicle going only 5 mph can maim someone.

 

[KittenKoder]

If the person was sitting in a parked car in a parking lot on private property, no law was broken, period.



Wrong! When you use a vehicle to intentionally commit manslaughter, it's a weapon. When you're driving 65 in a 55, it's not. That's why you're issued a speeding ticket and not a warrant for attempted murder.



So since I refuse to wear a seat belt, I'm more of a threat to mug someone walking down the street? Not all roadways have pedestrians. Your fucking arguments are two things...dumb and dumber.

If you are speeding you are intentionally risking other people's lives for your own selfish desires, plain and simple.

Just driving will intentionally risk lives. A vehicle going only 5 mph can maim someone.

But the chances increase the faster you go, thus why speed limits were created. Even then, none of that matters, if you are willing to break a law then you are garbage, period. I do not believe in criminal's rights. We vote on the laws, we choose them, if you can't follow what you voted for then you don't deserve to be a citizen and are no better than the illegal immigrants.

 

[Sweet Willy]

no, thats what you are saying

No, I'm asking for moderation in the use of force at traffic stops. In specific, stops for non criminal, traffic code stops. Especially the use of weapons.

You suugest that I wouldn't want any stops at all.

One of those ideas is the extreme, one is not.

First, breaking the law makes you a criminal, period.

Secondly, you do realize that that one ton of steel traveling at high velocity is one of the most dangerous weapons you can legally own ... right?

Thirdly, you ignore the danger you criminals pose to pedestrians and disregard their safety altogether, if you are willing to break a small and simple law, such as seat belts, then there is no telling what other laws you will break as well.

Absolute garbage.

You're scared. You project fear. To condone the use of weapons, against traffic code offenders and try to rationalize that with the irrational fear that someone who fails to wear a seatbelt is prone to be a criminal of God knows what proportion, is absolute garbage. Complete and utter garbage. FAIL.

You are of a weak constitution. You're not alone. Plenty of scared people running around, happy for the police to use force at any chance, on any violator, even the seat belt violator because Lord knows he might come rape you when he's done with all that sealt belt crime.

Hell yes, cops should use force loosely on anyone that scares YOU. These seat belt offenders you are afraid of.

Yeah, that's very rational, normal and within the range of what main stream America fears. Traffic violators who don't get tased and then come rape you. It's just a natural progression of the criminal mind.

 

[jgbkab]

If you are speeding you are intentionally risking other people's lives for your own selfish desires, plain and simple.

Just driving will intentionally risk lives. A vehicle going only 5 mph can maim someone.

But the chances increase the faster you go, thus why speed limits were created. Even then, none of that matters, if you are willing to break a law then you are garbage, period. I do not believe in criminal's rights. We vote on the laws, we choose them, if you can't follow what you voted for then you don't deserve to be a citizen and are no better than the illegal immigrants.

Do you even vote? What laws have you voted on?

 

[DiveCon]

No, I'm asking for moderation in the use of force at traffic stops. In specific, stops for non criminal, traffic code stops. Especially the use of weapons.

You suugest that I wouldn't want any stops at all.

One of those ideas is the extreme, one is not.

First, breaking the law makes you a criminal, period.

Secondly, you do realize that that one ton of steel traveling at high velocity is one of the most dangerous weapons you can legally own ... right?

Thirdly, you ignore the danger you criminals pose to pedestrians and disregard their safety altogether, if you are willing to break a small and simple law, such as seat belts, then there is no telling what other laws you will break as well.

Absolute garbage.

You're scared. You project fear. To condone the use of weapons, against traffic code offenders and try to rationalize that with the irrational fear that someone who fails to wear a seatbelt is prone to be a criminal of God knows what proportion, is absolute garbage. Complete and utter garbage. FAIL.

You are of a weak constitution. You're not alone. Plenty of scared people running around, happy for the police to use force at any chance, on any violator, even the seat belt violator because Lord knows he might come rape you when he's done with all that sealt belt crime.

Hell yes, cops should use force loosely on anyone that scares YOU. These seat belt offenders you are afraid of.

Yeah, that's very rational, normal and within the range of what main stream America fears. Traffic violators who don't get tased and then come rape you. It's just a natural progression of the criminal mind.

and you are rationalizing someone resisting arrest to someone just violating a traffic law

 

[Sweet Willy]

If you are speeding you are intentionally risking other people's lives for your own selfish desires, plain and simple.

Just driving will intentionally risk lives. A vehicle going only 5 mph can maim someone.

But the chances increase the faster you go, thus why speed limits were created. Even then, none of that matters, if you are willing to break a law then you are garbage, period. I do not believe in criminal's rights. We vote on the laws, we choose them, if you can't follow what you voted for then you don't deserve to be a citizen and are no better than the illegal immigrants.

More absolute garbage and more scared silly baloney. "Willing" to break the law. A headlight went out on the way home. What a menace that criminal must be. Improper equipment violations. "Ooops. I didn't even notice my inspection sticker was out." Obviously the absent mind of a criminal at work. Forgot your turn signal? You'll probably rob a bank later in the day.

But anyway, let's look at another one of Kitty's facts. This one I suspect comes from Kitty's Imaginary Highway Safety Data Handbook.

Kitty, would you provide us with supporting information about how higher speed limits increase chances....chances of what, I'm not sure. Anything will do. Let's make it easy for you. Show us the data on fatal accidents and the correlation with speed.

Something Kitty. Anything that shows us you aren't just talking off the top of your head with this. Surely your opinion is based on some facts, somewhere?