Man in wheelchair was handcuffed, left on sidewalk with his pants down

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Just another case of a some pussy joining the PD to make sure he gets to do the bullying now.

Keep in mind that the majority of folks Cops come in direct contact with are other cops and someone they suspect is a bad guy! They are far from 'pussies' and your term bullying sounds the same as a parent ordering a child to clean their room or turn the music down. There is authority over us in society.
Be glad Gort is not about!!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: monovillage
What makes you treat paraplegics and their physical abilities with such contempt? Having worked with them in the past they are as capable of doing damage to someone at close range as anyone else.

No, a double amputee is only half as capable. Let's not let political correctness overrule common sense. If 2 cops couldn't each grab one of his arms to move him out of the way, they shouldn't be cops. Same when someone tasers a 90 year old in a walker.

"Would you rather they beat or shot him?" As if there's no middle ground? Sheesh.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Brovane
They brought him in and then didn't have enough evidence to charge him with anything. If was resisting arrest enough to deserved to be tazed then I would think there would be more than enough evidence to charge him with something.

Police were only following procedure. You don't have to be committing a crime to get tased, just act like a dumbass.

If that's procedure, it's fucked in the head, as are those who defend it. I wouldn't taze you for acting like you do.

That's because I pose no threat to you and I'm not trying to detain you by law.

Oh, and I'm not LEO

But are you a bottom?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Tazing needs to carry the same significance to a police officer as being involved in a line-of-duty shooting (i.e. your ass gets kicked to the curb if it is unjustified).

Until that standard is universally enforced, we will continue to see lots of these ridiculous stories of people being tazed when they shouldn't be.

WTF!

I present to you possible outcomes before the adoption of a taser. "STOP RIGHT THERE! HANDS UP!" from a citizen's point of view.

1) Run away
2) Hands up, 'what's up officer, what you want?'
3) Charge the officer with or without a weapon
4) "IDENTIFY YOURSELF as a LEO", I am ARMED, do not approach me or I will fire. Do not approach, do not take a single step toward me.

What are the outcomes of this?

#3 results in you being tazed or killed. Everything else, nothing.

What happened to the requirement to identify yourself as a police officer?

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: jonks
Hm, any non-trolls defending the cops...*looks*...nope. Ok, guess we're all in agreement, tazer happy cops will keep tazing till someone gets fired or sued bigtime.

I am a non-troll and I will defend the Police or at least give them the benefit of the doubt until all the information is in and a determination by competent authority has been made as to whether it was justified or not. Everyone who jumps into this thread vilifying the police without sufficient information on what actually occurred is a moron and in my opinion a troll trying to stir the pot.
If the Police acted irresponsibly I will be the first to condemn them believe me.

Everyone who jumps into this thread defending the police without sufficient information on what actually occurred is a moron and in my opinion a troll trying to stir the pot.

Quick everyone, lets jump to defend a cop who tasered a paraplegic, he might have rolled his chair over someone's foot.

Good comeback.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: darkhorror
Most cops are idiot jerks what else is new...

Nice generalization ...... go troll somewhere else.

Most cops admit most cops are jerks. Time to take off the rose tinted glasses.

 

[WHAMPOM]

"Serve and Protect"? Now it's "Have Tazer, Must Taze". For those of you who condone misconduct, public criticism may be the only way to get the system to curb abuse of power.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: CitizenKain


What a non-surprise to see Mr Freedom here do backflips to defend the police abusing a suspect.

How in the world is it abuse? Suspect didn't comply, suspect got tazed. That's how it works. Would you rather the police beat him so he complies?

Given that he was released without charges being filed, it would seem evidence doesn't support your assertion. Perhaps I just live in that funny part of America where you are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty because a police officer says so.

You don't get tazed because an officer deams you guilty. You get tazed when you are going to be detained, arrested, etc and don't comply.

Why is this so hard for people to comprehend? A tazer is like handcuffs, it's a tool to detain somebody. It can also be used to stop a threat, but the main use is non-lethal force to detain and arrest you.

A tazer is not like handcuffs, no matter what spin you try to put on it. Handcuffs are for someone who has already succumbed to the police (willingly or not). A tazer is used to force someone to succumb, whether or not they should be subdued is the real question. The tazer has a bad reputation because of the officers who choose inappropriate times to utilize it. All the officers with a good head on their shoulders can blame the other officers with the lack of composure to use it properly when the tazer is finally banned.

We live in a country where each of us is innocent until proven guilty, tazing a suspect who was later released due to lack of evidence is inappropriate. Regardless of disabilities the suspect may have, but tazing paraplegics is just adding fuel to the fire.

 

[JKing106]

Wasn't it awesome when that BART rent-a-cop murdered that black kid when he thought he was shooting him with a taser, instead of his big tough pop gun? Yeah, that kid was dangerous. He was laying on his face with a knee in his back. Good thing that hero was too stupid to remember which gun was which, right? Praise Baby Jeebus with an AK!

 

[Deeko]

I can't believe this thread is as long as it is.

There are not nearly enough details in that article to come to any kind of conclusion in this case. Just because he's in a wheelchair doesn't mean he can't resist arrest or do something to cause him to get tazed. If you're making a stance one way or another based off that paltry article, you're wrong.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
We live in a country where each of us is innocent until proven guilty, tazing a suspect who was later released due to lack of evidence is inappropriate.

The police have very little to do with the proposition of innocence. Cops are not lawyers or prosecutors, they merely deal in suspicion or activity sufficient to warrant arrest. Guilt or innocent is reserved for determination at trial. Either a tazing was the correct amount of force to apply, or it was not. This is not always an abundantly clear line, but regardless, whether charges are brought or whether the person is ultimately charged and found not guilty in court is irrelevent to whether a tazing is appropriate at the time of its use.

When they taze grannies and people in wheelchairs, a great deal of scrutiny should be applied as to whether the force was excessive given the options available to the officer.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: monovillage

What makes you treat paraplegics and their physical abilities with such contempt? Having worked with them in the past they are as capable of doing damage to someone at close range as anyone else.

Its not contempt to be realistic.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
We live in a country where each of us is innocent until proven guilty, tazing a suspect who was later released due to lack of evidence is inappropriate.

The police have very little to do with the proposition of innocence. Cops are not lawyers or prosecutors, they merely deal in suspicion or activity sufficient to warrant arrest. Guilt or innocent is reserved for determination at trial. Either a tazing was the correct amount of force to apply, or it was not. This is not always an abundantly clear line, but regardless, whether charges are brought or whether the person is ultimately charged and found not guilty in court is irrelevent to whether a tazing is appropriate at the time of its use.

When they taze grannies and people in wheelchairs, a great deal of scrutiny should be applied as to whether the force was excessive given the options available to the officer.

I understand that, and how the police must approach any given situation. As people in a "free" country, the only way to keep the police in check is to draw attention when these things happen.

The presumption of innocence has little to do with the police, I get that, but IMO if there's not enough evidence to charge someone with the crime, there's definitely not enough to arrest them, and definitely not enough to taze.

Again, this is regardless of disability. When will enough be enough? What person of importance will have to give their life, dignity, or both via tazer for it to be enough? Is combat training and batons not enough anymore? That much voltage can cause damage to healthy people, and kill people with health issues. The police have no knowledge of our health (unless you're a paraplegic I guess), so IMO tazers are more dangerous than guns. At least with guns the police know what's going to happen.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z
We live in a country where each of us is innocent until proven guilty, tazing a suspect who was later released due to lack of evidence is inappropriate.

The police have very little to do with the proposition of innocence. Cops are not lawyers or prosecutors, they merely deal in suspicion or activity sufficient to warrant arrest. Guilt or innocent is reserved for determination at trial. Either a tazing was the correct amount of force to apply, or it was not. This is not always an abundantly clear line, but regardless, whether charges are brought or whether the person is ultimately charged and found not guilty in court is irrelevent to whether a tazing is appropriate at the time of its use.

The presumption of innocence has little to do with the police, I get that, but IMO if there's not enough evidence to charge someone with the crime, there's definitely not enough to arrest them, and definitely not enough to taze.

You seem to be conflating the police's authorized use of force with arrest procedure. An arrest can be made completely independent of criminal charges. Evidence gathering precedes arrests that are executed on arrest warrants, not impromptu arrests predicated on conduct at the scene. A cop has no duty to gather evidence prior to an impromptu arrest based on a person's conduct, nor the knowledge to know whether the totality of circumstances at the time of the arrest would justify charges being brought by the prosecutor. Further, guns, tazers or any other use of force by police is wholly independent of arrest procedure. The use of force applied at the time of an arrest is completely unrelated to possible future criminal charges. A cop should use force for safety's sake at the time such force is being used, and that's it.

The police have no knowledge of our health (unless you're a paraplegic I guess), so IMO tazers are more dangerous than guns. At least with guns the police know what's going to happen.

I'll assume you're being hyperbolic. If not, go ask the guy in the wheelchair, or anyone else who's been tazed, if they'd have rather been shot 3 times. Recognize there's no such thing as "shoot to injure."