Shouting teen shot with stun gun, dies next day

[pontifex]

lmao...the reading comprehension of atot is amazing

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Jahee

And the police, knowing this, should always assume that the person has a heart condition or whatever before using these things, i wonder if the officers are educated on the all effects the tasers can have on a human body and use this knowledge to effectively use them.

Police should notify the person that tasers can have a negative affect on someone with a bad heart, but it should not prevent them from using it.

The person being tasered is making their own choice.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77
You're basically insinuating that every arrest should be preceded by a tasering, since the cops will never know what the perp has in his pockets.

That's not true, but if the person being arrested in unco-operative and combative than absolutely.

actaully it is true. in his line of reasoning that is pretty mcuh what he said.

is it what he ment to say? no i dont think so. he just did not chose his words very well.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: pontifex
lmao...the reading comprehension of atot is amazing

Specifically, yours. Maybe you need to go back and reread what you wrote. At least I was man enough to own up to my mistake .

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77
You're basically insinuating that every arrest should be preceded by a tasering, since the cops will never know what the perp has in his pockets.

That's not true, but if the person being arrested in unco-operative and combative than absolutely.

actaully it is true. in his line of reasoning that is pretty mcuh what he said.

is it what he ment to say? no i dont think so. he just did not chose his words very well.

Yup

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Jahee

And the police, knowing this, should always assume that the person has a heart condition or whatever before using these things, i wonder if the officers are educated on the all effects the tasers can have on a human body and use this knowledge to effectively use them.

Police should notify the person that tasers can have a negative affect on someone with a bad heart, but it should not prevent them from using it.

The person being tasered is making their own choice.

you are right.

if they had to take the time to ask if they have heart trouble or not use them on someone that could have heart trouble (ok maybe not old people but a 17 yr old kid?) is just going to get a cop killed.


tazers have there place. I just feel in this one case it shouldn't have been used. heck i don't think the cops should have been bothering him

 

[Jahee]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Jahee

And the police, knowing this, should always assume that the person has a heart condition or whatever before using these things, i wonder if the officers are educated on the all effects the tasers can have on a human body and use this knowledge to effectively use them.

Police should notify the person that tasers can have a negative affect on someone with a bad heart, but it should not prevent them from using it.

The person being tasered is making their own choice.

In this situation with a shouting raving bi-polar kid, i dont think this is practical, as with certain other situations where police feel the use of tasers is necessary.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy
you are right. they should just taser people right off the bat from now on.

hah. my thoughts exactly. next thing you know, you'll be getting tasered at traffic stops. afterall, the cops have no way of knowing what you're hiding in the car

Yep. The problem with pontifex's statement is that it sets a very dangerous precedent: tasering a suspect whenever you need to take them down because you have no idea what's in their pockets.

Not a dangerous precedent at all. If you listen to the police and abide by their commands, then you won't be tasered.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy
you are right. they should just taser people right off the bat from now on.

hah. my thoughts exactly. next thing you know, you'll be getting tasered at traffic stops. afterall, the cops have no way of knowing what you're hiding in the car

Yep. The problem with pontifex's statement is that it sets a very dangerous precedent: tasering a suspect whenever you need to take them down because you have no idea what's in their pockets.

Not a dangerous precedent at all. If you listen to the police and abide by their commands, then you won't be tasered.

so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Jahee
In this situation with a shouting raving bi-polar kid, i dont think this is practical, as with certain other situations where police feel the use of tasers is necessary.

The fact that the boy was bi-polar or mentally unstable complicates the matter, but it shouldn't change how the police handle the situation. The fact that he is uncooperative and combative is all that the police should need to use stun guns to subdue him.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy
you are right. they should just taser people right off the bat from now on.

hah. my thoughts exactly. next thing you know, you'll be getting tasered at traffic stops. afterall, the cops have no way of knowing what you're hiding in the car

Yep. The problem with pontifex's statement is that it sets a very dangerous precedent: tasering a suspect whenever you need to take them down because you have no idea what's in their pockets.

Not a dangerous precedent at all. If you listen to the police and abide by their commands, then you won't be tasered.

so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

We're just going in circles at this point. Pontifex and GJ aren't interested in evaluating any possible deeper consequences of pontifex's earlier statement. Pontifex is more interested in being right, and GJ appears a little less than objective. On that note, I'm exiting state left .

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy
you are right. they should just taser people right off the bat from now on.

hah. my thoughts exactly. next thing you know, you'll be getting tasered at traffic stops. afterall, the cops have no way of knowing what you're hiding in the car

Yep. The problem with pontifex's statement is that it sets a very dangerous precedent: tasering a suspect whenever you need to take them down because you have no idea what's in their pockets.

Not a dangerous precedent at all. If you listen to the police and abide by their commands, then you won't be tasered.

so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

are you being combative with police? are you ignoring them? if not, then you don't have to worry about being tasered. but if so, then they have every right to do what they can to subdue you.

i don't know how you can ignore that. no they don't have a right to just come up to you and taser you like you are suggesting and thats not what i'm saying at all.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: waggy
so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

If you are uncooperative and combative yes.

Police should not be allowed to use tasers first, but they should not be prevented from using them in cases that warrant it either.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy
you are right. they should just taser people right off the bat from now on.

hah. my thoughts exactly. next thing you know, you'll be getting tasered at traffic stops. afterall, the cops have no way of knowing what you're hiding in the car

Yep. The problem with pontifex's statement is that it sets a very dangerous precedent: tasering a suspect whenever you need to take them down because you have no idea what's in their pockets.

Not a dangerous precedent at all. If you listen to the police and abide by their commands, then you won't be tasered.

so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

yeap. GaretJax has come messed up logic - or a complete lack thereof.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy
you are right. they should just taser people right off the bat from now on.

hah. my thoughts exactly. next thing you know, you'll be getting tasered at traffic stops. afterall, the cops have no way of knowing what you're hiding in the car

Yep. The problem with pontifex's statement is that it sets a very dangerous precedent: tasering a suspect whenever you need to take them down because you have no idea what's in their pockets.

Not a dangerous precedent at all. If you listen to the police and abide by their commands, then you won't be tasered.

so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

are you being combative with police? are you ignoring them? if not, then you don't have to worry about being tasered. but if so, then they have every right to do what they can to subdue you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but police officers are taught levels of force. The only time a cop should use a taser is if physically restraining the person doesn't work.. I can't think of a reason why a bunch of cops can't subdue some crazy kid with a Bible. They were the aggressors in this situation... It's the equivalent of shooting somebody when a taser would work. In that case, ATOT would be defending the cop saying that he had no way of knowing whether the subject would respond to a taser.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: waggy
you are right. they should just taser people right off the bat from now on.

hah. my thoughts exactly. next thing you know, you'll be getting tasered at traffic stops. afterall, the cops have no way of knowing what you're hiding in the car

Yep. The problem with pontifex's statement is that it sets a very dangerous precedent: tasering a suspect whenever you need to take them down because you have no idea what's in their pockets.

Not a dangerous precedent at all. If you listen to the police and abide by their commands, then you won't be tasered.

so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

yeap. GaretJax has come messed up logic - or a complete lack thereof.

i'm sorry, but your logic is just as fvcked up, if not worse.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
We're just going in circles at this point. Pontifex and GJ aren't interested in evaluating any possible deeper consequences of pontifex's earlier statement. Pontifex is more interested in being right, and GJ appears a little less than objective. On that note, I'm exiting state left .

Unobjective - how so?

My position is very objective - if you are are uncooperative and combative to police regardless of race, colour, religion, height, weight, sex, age, hairstyle, clothes, etc.... then prepare to be tasered - especially if they have warned you that it is going to happen.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Aharami

yeap. GaretJax has come messed up logic - or a complete lack thereof.

I am saying that cops shouldn't risk their lives any more than they already do to do theit jobs. Very logical to me. You just happen to disagree.

 

[Jahee]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Jahee
In this situation with a shouting raving bi-polar kid, i dont think this is practical, as with certain other situations where police feel the use of tasers is necessary.

The fact that the boy was bi-polar or mentally unstable complicates the matter, but it shouldn't change how the police handle the situation. The fact that he is uncooperative and combative is all that the police should need to use stun guns to subdue him.

Ok i agree with that, but still, with a person who is distressed and seems unreasonable, they are not going to listen and take in what the police is saying in that the taser the are about to use may harm you if you arent in good health. the latter i dont agree with, if i was a police officer i would treat the taser like any other lethal weapon i.e a gun and use it accordingly, not as a first course of action.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Jahee

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Jahee
Hmm, i think that this maybe should be the first course of action, there was only 2 police, im a bit divided on this but i dont think the first action towoards him should have been the tasers, was he that much of a raving lunatic? that one officer could have tackled him and the other cuffed him? if i was a cop then i would rather give the kid a couple bruises than an electric shock... Then again i do realise i wasnt there so i cant really comment...

The problem is that stun guns are so effective that hardened criminals who have experienced them once will literally give up rather than endure them again.

There is no reason for police officers to take unnecessary risks when they can use stun guns to achieve the same purpose with no risk.

While i do see your point of view, i do think the fact that 2 officers using a stun gun on a "130 lb 17 year old" had an element of them wanting to try out their new "toys". Although like i said before i dont know the exact situation so i cant really comment.

yeap. they had them for 5 months.


i still wonder why they were even bothering the kid.

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Tasers are billed as being a nonlethal alternative. The problem with this is that they ARE lethal in a significant number of cases. Police departments choose to ignore this and continue to use them as if they were nonlethal (meaning, liberally).

yeap

disturbing the peace?
if some wackjob was outside my house or business yelling i want jesus, i'd call the police too.

perhaps. but is it worthy of arresting the guy? worth of sending out 6 officers?

he was yelling in the street. I think the cops over-reacted on this.

They warned him, then shot him... No overreaction. If you ignore the police and get hurt, it is your fault.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: Aharami
still. thats just lazy policing. they should only use stun guns when they cant subdue the person physically.

Nope it's smart policing - the cops are protecting themselves.

...when they really signed up to protect the citizens they serve. Cops shouldnt be cops if they are afraid of a few bruises. Its part of the job description. The kid is said to be bipolar, and he was 130 lbs. One cop could've cuffed the kid by himself. Im sorry, this nothing but extremely lazy policing.

Id understand the use of tasers if the kid was wielding a weapon...but last i checked, a bible isnt a weapon (depends on who you ask though ).

You know procedure then enough to judge how cops should and shouldn't be? They should dimiss procedure because mr. tough guy on the internet says they should?

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Correct me if I'm wrong, but police officers are taught levels of force. The only time a cop should use a taser is if physically restraining the person doesn't work.. I can't think of a reason why a bunch of cops can't subdue some crazy kid with a Bible. They were the aggressors in this situation... It's the equivalent of shooting somebody when a taser would work. In that case, ATOT would be defending the cop saying that he had no way of knowing whether the subject would respond to a taser.

Cops are taight force + 1. Cops should never meet an assailant on an even playing field, because the chance of injury goes through the roof.

The boy was uncooperative and combative. The police had every reason to believe that he would continue to be so. Under these circumstances - it makes no sense to meet physical force with physical force - the cops needed to up the ante - so they used stun guns.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Garet Jax

Originally posted by: waggy
so its ok for a cop to tazer me because i may or may not have a gun or knife (well i always have a knife).

then like i said. they should just tazer everyone right off the bat..

If you are uncooperative and combative yes.

Police should not be allowed to use tasers first, but they should not be prevented from using them in cases that warrant it either.

again. that is NOT what he said.
my god im amazed you two are nto getting it.

NOBODY is saying to NEVER taz anyone. we are saying pontifax screwed up with something he said.
"i didn't know police had x-ray vision and could see into pockets. he could have had a gun or knife in his pockets or stuffed into his belt."

so we are pointing out IF that is the fcase then why not just taz everyone off the bat? just do it fist thing.

hell you never know who has a gun or knife.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Jahee
i would treat the taser like any other lethal weapon i.e a gun and use it accordingly, not as a first course of action.

I think this is where we disagree. I don't believe the taser is a lethal weapon any more than pepper spray.

I believe that it can kill people who have the makeup conducive to it, but the cops aren't the ones who need to judge this - it is up to the person being subdued to decide this.

If I am allergic to pepper and cops threaten to use pepper spray on me, then I had better stop strugglingor risk having my allergy triggered.

 

[Billzie7718]

Originally posted by: waggy
cnn

JERSEYVILLE, Illinois (AP) -- A teenager carrying a Bible and shouting "I want Jesus" was shot twice with a police stun gun and later died at a St. Louis hospital, authorities said.

In a statement obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, police in Jerseyville, about 40 miles north of St. Louis, said 17-year-old Roger Holyfield would not acknowledge officers who approached him and he continued yelling, "I want Jesus."

Police tried to calm the teen, but Holyfield became combative, according to the statement. Officers fired the stun gun at him after he ignored their warnings, then fired again when he continued struggling, police said.

Holyfield was flown to St. Louis' Cardinal Glennon Hospital after the confrontation Saturday; he died there Sunday, police said.

An autopsy was planned for Tuesday.

The statement expressed sympathy to Holyfield's family but said city and police officials would not discuss the matter further.

Calls Tuesday to Jerseyville Police Chief Brad Blackorby were not immediately returned. The department has been using stun guns for about five months, according to the statement.

In a report released in March, international human rights group Amnesty International said it had logged at least 156 deaths across the country in the previous five years related to police stun guns.

The rise in deaths accompanies a marked increase in the number of U.S. law enforcement agencies employing devices made by Taser International Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona. About 1,000 of the nation's 18,000 police agencies used Tasers in 2001; more than 7,000 departments had them last year, according to a government study.

Police had used Tasers more than 70,000 times as of last year, Congress' Government Accountability Office said.

Amnesty International has urged police departments to suspend the use of Tasers pending more study. Taser International said the group's count was flawed and falsely linked deaths to Taser use when there has been no such official conclusion.

The city of St. Louis also drew unwanted attention for crime this week when it was named the most dangerous U.S. city by Morgan Quitno Press. The ranking looked only at crime within St. Louis city limits, not its metro area.






thats nice of the cops! helped the kid see Jesus!

I don't get it. Kid wanted Jesus ... now he's got him. What's the problem?

Proposed New Slogan: Police - Bringing people together.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: waggy
again. that is NOT what he said.
my god im amazed you two are nto getting it.

NOBODY is saying to NEVER taz anyone. we are saying pontifax screwed up with something he said.
"i didn't know police had x-ray vision and could see into pockets. he could have had a gun or knife in his pockets or stuffed into his belt."

so we are pointing out IF that is the fcase then why not just taz everyone off the bat? just do it fist thing.

hell you never know who has a gun or knife.

I AM NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST ANYTHING PONTIFLEX SAID - I AM ARGUING SIMPLY THAT THE POLICE WERE RIGHT IN USING PEPPER SPRAY AGAINST THE BOY IS THIS ARTICLE.

You're not getting it.