RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Alumbrado -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 12:59:41 PM)

quote:

Unlike you, the police are a service.....their only reason to exist is to serve society.


You've brought up that 'the police only exist to protect and serve' claim before. How is it that the courts aren't aware of it? They seem to believe that the police exist as an arm of the court, used to compel people to do things they don't want to do.

And if the police are just there to serve some societal notion then why is there such a big market for private security companies to protect and serve?




mnottertail -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 1:02:16 PM)

Then they aught to get that fucking worthless shit off the side of the police car, and play on a level playing field.

Extension of the court my ass, they are overwhelmingly throwing shit against the wall and trying to stick it all day long.

Ron




Alumbrado -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 1:04:13 PM)

quote:

Extension of the court my ass


Really... when was the last time you saw a judge make their own arrests?




mnottertail -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 1:11:50 PM)

A distinction without a difference; Alumbrado, when is the last time you read in the paper about a judge manufacturing or hiding or throwing away evidence that would hurt the prosecutions case or prove the defendants innocence?

It isn't worth you or me blathering about it, this is not argument in the classical sense, this is simply adversarial discourse in which reason and truth will never prevail.

Ron




Alumbrado -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 1:16:35 PM)

If you say so.[8|]




laurell3 -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 1:37:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

Extension of the court my ass


Really... when was the last time you saw a judge make their own arrests?


It's a fairly well-known basic of the law that law enforcement is completely separate from the Courts.  In fact, in reality, law enforcement is supposed to be impartial to what happens after an arrest.  The fact that an arrest is made means absolutely nothing other than it brings the issue before the court when charges are filed.  It's fairly standard jury instruction in most states as such.




Archer -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 2:12:03 PM)

Going to side issue this ost with a pet peeve of mine.
The woman was not Tazed.

She was shocked with a stun gun an entirely different thing.
Stun Gun is the thing you have to be within arms reach and make contact with the person's body to have it work.
Tazer is a gun that fires little darts that each have a wire and that shocks the person, thus making it a short distance but non contact weapon. Nothing like a little accuracy from the media.

The neck as placement for the stun gun was dictated by the fact of heavy clothing clearly evident on the woman. A thin layer of clothing will not bock the shock but a heavy coat will.

Now as to was it justifiable to use it in this case? I'm having trouble seeing it as justified, and that's saying something because I'm pretty easy to convince when it comes to cops doing the job.







Alumbrado -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 2:13:33 PM)

Not quite completely separate. Neutral yes. Administered separately, yes...as a part of the executive branch.
But they can have duties within the court system, such as compelling a person to appear, providing testimony, etc.

No doubt some places do it differently, but the protective/service function was originally private, is still heavily private, and the USSC has ruled that the police have no protective obligation in the bodyguard sense.




Alumbrado -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 2:20:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Going to side issue this ost with a pet peeve of mine.
The woman was not Tazed.

She was shocked with a stun gun an entirely different thing.
Stun Gun is the thing you have to be within arms reach and make contact with the person's body to have it work.
Tazer is a gun that fires little darts that each have a wire and that shocks the person, thus making it a short distance but non contact weapon. Nothing like a little accuracy from the media.

The neck as placement for the stun gun was dictated by the fact of heavy clothing clearly evident on the woman. A thin layer of clothing will not bock the shock but a heavy coat will.

Now as to was it justifiable to use it in this case? I'm having trouble seeing it as justified, and that's saying something because I'm pretty easy to convince when it comes to cops doing the job.



Actually the Tazer can also be used as a contact stun gun without firing the barbs.





Archer -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 2:32:14 PM)

True enough but the fact remains that sloppy speach and reporting is still sloppy. The fact is the media likes TAZER because is sounds cool and draws attention to stories. Almost no cop carries a Tazer on his belt although they do carry stun guns quite often. Tazers are usually something they have to go to the trunk and get.

Fact is the term has almost reached the point of use it long enough and everyone will be using the wrong term and it will become the defacto truth. Tazers and Stun Guns are different things people make sure you have the right information before you report it to someone else. The same way assault weapon was used to black mark rifles with no more deadly function than many hunting rifles. Because they looked evil to a commitee.




laurell3 -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 2:33:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Not quite completely separate. Neutral yes. Administered separately, yes...as a part of the executive branch.
But they can have duties within the court system, such as compelling a person to appear, providing testimony, etc.

No doubt some places do it differently, but the protective/service function was originally private, is still heavily private, and the USSC has ruled that the police have no protective obligation in the bodyguard sense.


The point being they are NOT an extension as you previously stated.

Providing testimony before that Court, in fact would suggest quite the opposite.  Law enforcement other than those doing security for the court are NOT connected to the court.  While executing warrants is a duty of law enforcement the Court generally has no control over how the warrants are executed, the police request warrants for arrests and searches but have no control over whether the Court grants them.  The misconception that police and courts control each other is common and commonly a source of confusion and conspiracy theories.  They do not.




Alumbrado -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 2:43:50 PM)

I don't think you are using 'arm of the court' in the same manner that I am. I never said anything aout the courts controlling how police do their other tasks.

The police perform some functions that 'the court' (i.e. judges, clerks and a few bailiffs) usually cannot do for itself. That is how they are 'an arm of' the court. Sometimes LE is referred to as 'a reporting agency to the court'.

And the protection/service duties are still better done by private employees.




kittyinpink -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 2:58:00 PM)

Why the hell would the officer question her about wanting to give up custody of her child in the first place???  Is there not a baby moses law there?

If a parent wants to give up their child to the authorities, take the child.  Better than the child ending up in a trashcan or a cooler.




laurell3 -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 3:13:55 PM)

Because apparently she came in saying she couldn't care for the kid then tried to leave with him.  At that point they have to at least investigate whether she is fit.




kittinSol -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 3:21:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Because apparently she came in saying she couldn't care for the kid then tried to leave with him.  At that point they have to at least investigate whether she is fit.


Obviously, if the cops managed to brutalize the woman into being unfit, it follows that she must have been fit to start with.




laurell3 -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 3:39:06 PM)

Your bias may be keeping you from seeing that what I stated was merely what was reported in the story and nothing more.




kittinSol -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 3:40:50 PM)

I was actually making light of a heavy discussion: forgive me if I offended you.




popeye1250 -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 4:41:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: laurell3

Here at least they have a requirement of certification to carry them.  The cerfitication includes training from the Department of Health on the effects and unknown, non-visible health risks for people with certain types of medical problems/histories.  Having observed that training several years ago, I am quite positive they are instructed here that tasers can be lethal.

I used to live in a smaller city with around only 30k population at the time, and before tasers the cops had large maglight flashlights.  When they got into struggles they used themand/or the person they were attempting to detain used them and those things are pretty disasterous as a weapon.  The chief of police there took them away and gave them smaller flashlights because of several incidents and because of the additional weight they were carrying.  They have tasers now, but he's placed a heavy paperwork burden on them for every single use of one and they have had no serious incidents of health issues.  They have detailed, written procedure for the use of tasers in only extraordinary circumstances.  I'm sure all departments do, it is a liability issue to protect the tax payers. 

Officers are trained, however, NOT to get in a physical struggle with people IF it can be avoided because of the access others get to their firearm when they do.  Now, whether a pregnant woman facedown on the floor is such a risk is the question.  They are also trained not to allow an agitated person or someone under arrest to return to their vehicle (previous thread and video) because of access to any weapons they might have there. 

Unfortunately, not all police departments are that small and that well maintained/trained and accidents do happen and people take a risk when they resist that they will get injured.   In that department merely being unprofessional to a citizen would result in consequences. He just did not tolerate it at all.  He also did not tolerate others being rude to them in the political arena and supported them overall on a daily basis. 

In my opinion those of you that repeatedly say that in every post about law enforcement that all cops are corrupt or wrong are, in my opinion, ill-advised and paranoid fools.  These men and women do a job that NONE of us would do and the majority of them are comitted to what they do and yes, like all of us, they make mistakes occasionally in their jobs.  However, a police department anywhere is only as good as it's management and accountability.  There's always the possiblity of someone getting in that shouldn't be there even in a good department. 

I would be willing to bet that the officer in this video did not follow the written procedure for that department when using this taser.  Whether that procedure is actually enforced is again, a question of management.


Laurell3, well said. There's no absolutes.




laurell3 -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (11/29/2007 6:35:45 PM)

wow popeye you actually agreed with something I said?  It's a first!  yay! thanks!




pahunkboy -> RE: It just keeps happening, tazers. (2/2/2008 8:11:43 AM)

http://www.break.com/index/how-to-build-a-homemade-taser.html




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875