RE: 19 yr old tagger, tazed, died, do you care? - 8/10/2013 8:38:56 AM
|
|
|
eulero83
Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83 I really don't understand how the 95yo situation is different from this one, and just to say if I could choose between being tckled or tazed I'll go for the first one even for some of you is so much insensitive and dangerouse my The 95 year old was refusing medical treatment. Unless a judge orders you to treatment- you may deny and decline medical treatment- at least under PA 6400 regs. You have a right to refuse medications, and medical treatment. You do not have a right to destroy other people, or their property. Nursing home staff is trained to deal with aged. A cane, or show horn- per a 95 year old- when they are forcing him to to what he legally does not have to do is a problem. As you know- I am pretty much an activist. In my circle of friends- tho- many are decrying this tazer death. Freedom tho- does not mean you have the right to destroy property. I loath corporations and mcdonalds. But as a home owner- I loath tagger worse. This guys friends could commemorate his death by cleaning graphiti off of spaces. The comment about the officer- I am sure he regrets the death. LEOs have a high incidence of suicide. They see the worst in humanity. I am all for rights- but a person does not have the right to harm another, (to include the property) Smoking pot would have been a victimless crime. Tagging costs the entire community. I applaud Erie and their goal to seek a solution. My town has entertained the same idea- I am against it. Thats my opinion. One size does not fit all. The teen was not tazed because of his tagging, and if it was this would mean being sujected to an unusual and cruel punishment, even if not resooulting to the death, that is nothing different from lashing for drinking alchool in saudi arabia, but he was tazed in order to make him collapse and facilitate arrest, the justification of using a painfull and dangerous (it's a fact that a difect in the tazer or a medical condition can bring to death) method was that the agents percived him as a threat becuse he was running in their direction. In the older man case he was not hit by the bean gun because refusing to be subject to a medical procedure, but because the agents percived him as a threat as he was pointing them a cane, and not confirmed by witnesses, a 6" knife. That's why I don't see difference but that while the older was a veteran the teen was a tagger, and I can understand the sympathy to the ww2 hero and the grudge to the vandal, I don't like graffiti and the subculture there is behind. My concerns, and some can be find in both of the stories, are about other things: the first one is moral, even if was it really necessary using painfull and dangerous weapons in that situation or other way could be find, so did the agents really acted in good faith or did they acted with superficiality, and even if professionally discharged they are morally responsible for the death? second one is legal, this is manslaughter can be negligent or not negligent, I don't know the law of the florida and I know there are different concepts between the one in your country and the one in mine so in this case I have to make some question to show my point, I heard in the posts something like "this was standard police procedure" are this procedure somehow supported by an official law, I suppose it must be written also in your country but I'm not so sure about, or are them internal police force guidelines? If not what does the law say about the use of force buy law enforcement? Can be any ammount of force be used on any kind of crime suspects when cought in flagranti? Or is it allowed (or even mandatory) only when it's reasonable that the suspect is a danger for a third part, like pedestrian in a chase of a under influence driver? And if it is does tagging proves this danger? Than I have a third one that is a cross between moral and legal, have this cops been sincere about their psicological state inthe moment they used force to make the suspect collapse? For what I know you define the legimity of defence on the percived threat and not on the actual threat (so by objective parameters) but can an officer that chased a suspect looking for physical contact for what is described a long time, than suddently when arrived in the proximity of the unarmed suspect what was the goal becomes in the mind of the officer cause of fear?
|
|
|