Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I will also let them know that you approve of the collapsible baton useage.
I see you failed reading comprehension. When a sentence is begun with IF then it indicates a possibility. Unfortunately I know of no way to be clearer than
IF a baton is shown to be less lethal than a Tazer
THEN it should be used instead of the Tazer.
I suppose a semiliterate supporter of a police state cannot be expected to understand logic or common English language constructions.
As to the idiot who called the deceased teen a "criminal" - unless he has a conviction on his record he can never be a criminal. He'll never be tried, and so by the law he won't be convicted of any crime. Really the police go break up a fight between three guys at a housing project (that is where effectively the sort of place they were staying, right) and one is too wound up, perhaps because the other two had been double teaming him, to immediately kowtow and suddenly he MUST be the bad guy to excuse the police officer who killed him. I recall a case I read of from the 70's in Dallas where a 16 year old boy was convicted as an adult for murder because he shot a 17 year old boy to prevent said 17 year old from knifing his 14 year old brother. Apparently defending your own kin against armed assault is not permitted, but any time a guy with a badge shoots an unarmed child, well that sort of thing happens and blah, blah, blah
Darn I feel really used after I tried to convince someone that Fascism did not exist in 21st century America. You guys make that point painfully clear.
All I know is it is being used far too often.
So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.You are simply wrong. RESISTING ARREST IS A FUCKING CRIME. A crack dealer who gets shot is still a dead fucking criminal.
the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!
Heh heh heh......
Take a look at the "ads By Google" line in the upper banner area. It has various taser advertisements.
So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.You are simply wrong. RESISTING ARREST IS A FUCKING CRIME. A crack dealer who gets shot is still a dead fucking criminal.
Odd, I'm almost certain that crack originated in the latter half of the 20th century. I know that the police killed people before then, so how were they all crack dealers?
Hurry along to your meeting with Mr Mption.
Oh and excellent use of gratuitous obscenities, it really strengthens your argument. A lot.
So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.You are simply wrong. RESISTING ARREST IS A FUCKING CRIME. A crack dealer who gets shot is still a dead fucking criminal.
Odd, I'm almost certain that crack originated in the latter half of the 20th century. I know that the police killed people before then, so how were they all crack dealers?
Hurry along to your meeting with Mr Mption.
Oh and excellent use of gratuitous obscenities, it really strengthens your argument. A lot.
I'm pointing out that the nomenclature of criminal doesn't hinge on being dubbed so by a judge. Again, a crack dealer who dies while confronting the police is still a criminal. This is what we call a fact. Another FACT at play here is that these cops didn't break any laws when doing their job to enforce the law. Your opinion of tazers mean exactly two things: jack and shit. When you have an example of actual abuse by police feel free to drop on by and spread your shit flavored opinion in the thread again. After all, why not crucify ALL cops just because, historically, SOME cops have killed? Enjoying that drama with your queen?
hey, noobtoast. welcome to USMB. Clearly, you are meant to be here.
the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!
So now you make an assumption that anyone killed by the police is a crack dealer.
Odd, I'm almost certain that crack originated in the latter half of the 20th century. I know that the police killed people before then, so how were they all crack dealers?
Hurry along to your meeting with Mr Mption.
Oh and excellent use of gratuitous obscenities, it really strengthens your argument. A lot.
I'm pointing out that the nomenclature of criminal doesn't hinge on being dubbed so by a judge. Again, a crack dealer who dies while confronting the police is still a criminal. This is what we call a fact. Another FACT at play here is that these cops didn't break any laws when doing their job to enforce the law. Your opinion of tazers mean exactly two things: jack and shit. When you have an example of actual abuse by police feel free to drop on by and spread your shit flavored opinion in the thread again. After all, why not crucify ALL cops just because, historically, SOME cops have killed? Enjoying that drama with your queen?
hey, noobtoast. welcome to USMB. Clearly, you are meant to be here.
are people criminals before they have a fair trial before a jury of their peers and a conviction in a court of law shogun? I thought we were innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in this great country of ours?
the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!
eh fuckit.. let's nix tazers so that cops can shoot raging offenders in the head with their sidearm! Cops are impervious, you know. Nothing like a little monday morning quarterbacking from a comfortable chair after the fact to REALLY shed light on the topic.
Hey, maybe we should expect cops to say pretty please when faced with violence criminals the next time. Why spare a good cop when a violent thug's life is at stake, right?
If a policeman believes you are endangering his personal safety or life, he is authorized to use force to subdue/kill you. Resisting arrest endangers the officers safety.are people criminals before they have a fair trial before a jury of their peers and a conviction in a court of law shogun? I thought we were innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY in this great country of ours?
Which is a convenient excuse when someone dies as a result of police action.If a policeman believes you are endangering his personal safety or life, he is authorized to use force to subdue/kill you. Resisting arrest endangers the officers safety.
the rules of use were put in before we knew tasers killed suspects, now that we know that they can kill people, the rules need to be modified to meet the new facts...is that really too much to ask? I think not!
eh fuckit.. let's nix tazers so that cops can shoot raging offenders in the head with their sidearm! Cops are impervious, you know. Nothing like a little monday morning quarterbacking from a comfortable chair after the fact to REALLY shed light on the topic.
Hey, maybe we should expect cops to say pretty please when faced with violence criminals the next time. Why spare a good cop when a violent thug's life is at stake, right?
It's as if you are impervious to logic!
Did you not see any of those vids of "raging", "dangerous" perps getting tasered by cops in "obvious peril"?
I think the police should have the benefit of the doubt, because they are in tense, unpredictable, and truly dangerous situations every day.
BUT, when the cops are shown to be abusing their power the punishment should be severe.
And all the clips here show real abuse.
Which is a convenient excuse when someone dies as a result of police action.If a policeman believes you are endangering his personal safety or life, he is authorized to use force to subdue/kill you. Resisting arrest endangers the officers safety.
I could have sworn the Protect and Serve meant ME the civilian, not the police officer.
I'm going to suggest a situation for all the "walk a mile in his shoes people"
Not to walk in an officer's shoes, but instead the innocent victim's
You are driving home from a late day at work. You have had a long day and are tired and irritable. You stopped at a convenience store to make a purchase, then drove on your way. The bulb which illuminates your rear license plate just burned out.
A police officer is sitting watching traffic. He has had a long day and is tired and irritable. He notices your light out and pulls you over for a citation. While running your plates he gets a notice of a crime committed with a suspect fleeing in a car matching the one you drive. He tells you to get out and put your hands on the hood of your car. Just to be safe, he readies his taser, since he can see you have no gun in your hands on the wheel. You get out and snap off an angry comment about ticket quotas. Emboldened by the general consensus that anyone shot by an officer is guilty, he tasers you just because he is irate. You are then arrested and charged with both resisting arrest AND the other crime which you absolutely did not commit. Unfortunately your counsel tells you the case is pretty cut and dried; you will be found guilty. Meanwhile your name has been spread in the paper; "Local Man subdued by Brave officer after committing heinous felony." You fight the case, but the damning evidence "He had to taser you to subdue you" convinces the jury.
I don't know about any of YOU, but for me that sort of scenario is decidedly unpalatable.
Let me adjust your silly fucking hypothetical just a bit:
You are a fucking gangster thug wannabe who happens to have a glock 9mm under the seat. The cop doesn't know about this. You reach under your seat and he tasez your lucky ass instead of shooting you in the fucking head. You get to live. End of story.
that may be your opinion from the cozy perspective of your computer throne but, alas, such is not the standard by which the police operate. Did the guy resist arrest? If you can't say NO then you have no real point to make. You can't predict what may or may not have happened were they not tazed. Sure, it's easy to insist they are innocent AFTER the fact. But, during the event it's a whole different story.
Let me adjust your silly fucking hypothetical just a bit:
You are a fucking gangster thug wannabe who happens to have a glock 9mm under the seat. The cop doesn't know about this. You reach under your seat and he tasez your lucky ass instead of shooting you in the fucking head. You get to live. End of story.
You really are clueless aren't you. The police tasered a young man. He died.
He had neither gun nor knife, nor any other weapon from all I have seen. And yet you blindly assert that this is the exact same thing as tasering a thug armed with a gun.
Oh, and the difference between my hypothetical and yours;
In mine, anyone who ever works late and drives a car could put themselves in the place suggested. In yours, those of us who are not thugs with Glock 9mm pistols can't envision ourselves in such a situation. Glad to have the update that you can see yourself as a thug easier than an honest citizen, it will remind me the sort of person you are.
I must however applaud your willingness to be tasered or shot the next time you pull your gun to commit one of your, presumably many, crimes.