Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

I'm not sure I understand. So if you have a taser, I can shoot you in the back while you run away from me? That just seems like it would be ok if I did that to you? Even if I have a large selection of other options that don't include killing you? I can select your death?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The taser is considered an incapacitating tool. Properly used against someone who is escalating violence, it is a non-lethal means of stopping the escalation. But when used against cops who are attempting to de-escalate, the taser becomes a means to further escalate the violence.

I'm just gonna keep this here so I can come back and look at it over the years.

[Folly]

I'm not sure I understand. So if you have a taser, I can shoot you in the back while you run away from me? That just seems like it would be ok if I did that to you? Even if I have a large selection of other options that don't include killing you? I can select your death?

Again, you're conveniently ignoring the facts that he stole the weapon from a cop, and then he pointed the weapon at a cop and discharged it. The fact that he was running away is largely immaterial.
None of the 'other options' would have effectively stopped the man from using potentially lethal force against them. The cops had good reason to believe their lives were in immediate danger and had every right to respond with the force necessary to protect themselves.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The encounter did not begin with him grabbing the tazer.

[The Adversary]

I'm not sure I understand. So if you have a taser, I can shoot you in the back while you run away from me? That just seems like it would be ok if I did that to you? Even if I have a large selection of other options that don't include killing you? I can select your death?

Again, you're conveniently ignoring the facts that he stole the weapon from a cop, and then he pointed the weapon at a cop and discharged it. The fact that he was running away is largely immaterial.
None of the 'other options' would have effectively stopped the man from using potentially lethal force against them. The cops had good reason to believe their lives were in immediate danger and had every right to respond with the force necessary to protect themselves.

Not really ignoring the facts, 'innit?

He stole a weapon from the cops that the cops have been trained to believe doesn't kill folks - to the point that they shoot it people when they don't want to kill them. The cop then pulled a weapon that he's been trained to believe does kill folks, and used it.

Doesn't break down much cleaner than that. You can try and wave smoke, but stealing something doesn't make it deadlier. Being drunk and disorderly doesn't grant you Thor powers to make taser amperage as lethal as a gun.

 If we do not accept this, and instead accept your notion that the Joe Random officers were genuinely in such fear for their lives from the application of taser shot that they believed that the only reasonable solution was to discharge a firearm, then does it not follow logically that any use of taser fire on their part for any other arrest be construed as the intent to use lethal force?

Personally, I think you're kinda bending yourself into a bit of a loop trying to make it so that the taser is an 'incapacitating tool' in one man's hands, but transforms into a murderous weapon to rival a firearm when it falls into the ninja skilled hands of a drunken rando.

[Rolan7]

I'm not sure I understand. So if you have a taser, I can shoot you in the back while you run away from me? That just seems like it would be ok if I did that to you? Even if I have a large selection of other options that don't include killing you? I can select your death?

Again, you're conveniently ignoring the facts that he stole the weapon from a cop, and then he pointed the weapon at a cop and discharged it. The fact that he was running away is largely immaterial.
None of the 'other options' would have effectively stopped the man from using potentially lethal force against them. The cops had good reason to believe their lives were in immediate danger and had every right to respond with the force necessary to protect themselves.

They were not in particular danger from a man who *fired*, past tense, the taser.  What's he going to do, reload it?  The things don't have magazines.

Discharging it at the officers while sprinting away is probably assault of some kind, technically, but that's not what you're claiming.  They were supposedly so mortally afraid of the fleeing man with the expended taser that they had to shoot him repeatedly with bullets.

I'm trying to keep to the relevant facts without judging the rest of the incident.  It doesn't really affect your argument that they suddenly escalated a fairly benign incident by tasing him (that "potentially lethal force" they were supposedly afraid of).  The important thing is they had no reason to fear the taser and no right to escalate from tasers to full-lethal force against a fleeing man.

[Folly]

If the drunk man stabbed the cop in the eye with a pen, would you argue that a pen isn't a weapon and therefore the cops had no right to retaliate? Obviously, intent plays a big part in the perceived danger behind any tool wielded as a weapon.

The encounter did not begin with him grabbing the tazer.

The encounter began with Brooks taking a nap in the middle of a drive-through lane. The cops responded by attempting to talk to Brooks and politely ask him to move. Brooks responded by grappling with the cops, stealing their weapon, and running from the cops while shooting at them.

The cops did not start this, and they did not escalate it, they simply responded in the only reasonable manner given the circumstances that Brooks created.

[hector13]

Yeah, it’s like the black dude thought the cops wouldn’t do their job properly and would, I don’t know, kneel on his neck for 10 minutes or something!

Sarcasm aside, his intent was to escape, made clear by the fact he was running away. He stole a weapon that is described universally as non-lethal in order to aid that. He had no intent to kill, so the cops should not have used lethal force, particularly when, as Duna already said, they had ample resources at their beck and call to either call to aid them, or get him later when he isn’t panicking.

[The Adversary]

If the drunk man stabbed the cop in the eye with a pen, would you argue that a pen isn't a weapon and therefore the cops had no right to retaliate? Obviously, intent plays a big part in the perceived danger behind any tool wielded as a weapon.

The encounter did not begin with him grabbing the tazer.

The encounter began with Brooks taking a nap in the middle of a drive-through lane. The cops responded by attempting to talk to Brooks and politely ask him to move. Brooks responded by grappling with the cops, stealing their weapon, and running from the cops while shooting at them.

The cops did not start this, and they did not escalate it, they simply responded in the only reasonable manner given the circumstances that Brooks created.

For a man who seemed incensed by people ignoring the facts, you don't seem to hot on keeping them on point. Let me help you.

  Brooks responded by grappling with the cops, stealing their weapon, and running from the cops while shooting at them. --> Brooks responded by grappling with the cops, stealing a non-lethal weapon, and running away from the cops with a discharged non-lethal weapon. 

See how much difference that makes?

Also, on the ballpoint pen problem. A little critical thinking will show you this is an incredibly spurious comparison. A pen is a tube of metal, makes a great shiv. A spoon can be similarly used, particularly if you grind the narrow bit of the head down on some brickwork first. However, we're not talking about a man with a shiv running at an officer and stabbing him in the face.

We're talking about a man running away, holding a piece of plastic (which, even if you binned it at someone's head at best speed probably wouldn't be fatal) which fires tiny tiny harpoons, which are attached to a one-to-two shot battery. A ballpoint pen is considerably more lethal than a taser, and the aforementioned spoon is like miles beyond it. Hell, it's probably still more lethal than a taser when thrown while running away, but if you're genuinely terrified for your life because you're having sharpened spoons lobbed at you by fleeing alcohol induced narcoleptics, you should probably not be a law enforcement officer.

[Reelya]

If the drunk man stabbed the cop in the eye with a pen

But this isn't the same as stabbing an eye with a pen. This is equivalent to running away and throwing a pen backwards at someone 20 meters away.

Categorically, the threat to the police officers in this scenario was literally nil. They shot him because they didn't want him to get away.

[Folly]

He stole a weapon from the cops that the cops have been trained to believe doesn't kill folks - to the point that they shoot it people when they don't want to kill them. The cop then pulled a weapon that he's been trained to believe does kill folks, and used it.
Doesn't break down much cleaner than that. You can try and wave smoke, but stealing something doesn't make it deadlier. Being drunk and disorderly doesn't grant you Thor powers to make taser amperage as lethal as a gun.
 If we do not accept this, and instead accept your notion that the Joe Random officers were genuinely in such fear for their lives from the application of taser shot that they believed that the only reasonable solution was to discharge a firearm, then does it not follow logically that any use of taser fire on their part for any other arrest be construed as the intent to use lethal force?
Personally, I think you're kinda bending yourself into a bit of a loop trying to make it so that the taser is an 'incapacitating tool' in one man's hands, but transforms into a murderous weapon to rival a firearm when it falls into the ninja skilled hands of a drunken rando.

If a random stranger grabs you, handcuffs you, drags you back to their house and locks you in their basement, that would be a very different circumstance compared to if a cop grabs you, cuffs you, takes you back to the police station and locks you in a holding cell.
Cops are permitted and expected to do things that regular citizens are not. That's just how law enforcement works. Claiming that a cop using his issued weapon against a suspect is exactly the same as that suspect stealing a weapon and using it against the cop is a gross misinterpretation of the situation.

[Rolan7]

If the drunk man stabbed the cop in the eye with a pen, would you argue that a pen isn't a weapon and therefore the cops had no right to retaliate? Obviously, intent plays a big part in the perceived danger behind any tool wielded as a weapon.

This is more like if he threw a rock, so they shot him because he might throw that rock at them again.

You seem to understand my point that he had no longer held a weapon.  Now you're claiming he exhibited deadly intent.  By... running away, discharging the taser wildly into the air.  Perhaps he simply didn't want it used against him, so he deescalated by expending the extraordinarily painful device as he, again, *fled*.

[The Adversary]

He stole a weapon from the cops that the cops have been trained to believe doesn't kill folks - to the point that they shoot it people when they don't want to kill them. The cop then pulled a weapon that he's been trained to believe does kill folks, and used it.
Doesn't break down much cleaner than that. You can try and wave smoke, but stealing something doesn't make it deadlier. Being drunk and disorderly doesn't grant you Thor powers to make taser amperage as lethal as a gun.
 If we do not accept this, and instead accept your notion that the Joe Random officers were genuinely in such fear for their lives from the application of taser shot that they believed that the only reasonable solution was to discharge a firearm, then does it not follow logically that any use of taser fire on their part for any other arrest be construed as the intent to use lethal force?
Personally, I think you're kinda bending yourself into a bit of a loop trying to make it so that the taser is an 'incapacitating tool' in one man's hands, but transforms into a murderous weapon to rival a firearm when it falls into the ninja skilled hands of a drunken rando.

If a random stranger grabs you, handcuffs you, drags you back to their house and locks you in their basement, that would be a very different circumstance compared to if a cop grabs you, cuffs you, takes you back to the police station and locks you in a holding cell.
Cops are permitted and expected to do things that regular citizens are not. That's just how law enforcement works. Claiming that a cop using his issued weapon against a suspect is exactly the same as that suspect stealing a weapon and using it against the cop is a gross misinterpretation of the situation.

You are missing my point. At no point did I make the claim that they weren't allowed. They are. We're talking about the cop's perceptions, not their rules.

You're saying the cop believes being shot with a taser is deadly enough to fear for their lives.

Then, from this, it follows that the cop believes that each time they use a taser then they are discharging a deadly weapon at a civilian.

Unless you're saying that cops believe that weapons become more deadly when held by other people. So, which option?

1. The Cops believe tasers aren't (usually) lethal.
2. The Cops believe tasers are (usually) lethal and use them as descalation tools anyway.
3. The Cops believe tasers are only lethal when held by other people.

[Folly]

A ballpoint pen is considerably more lethal than a taser, and the aforementioned spoon is like miles beyond it.

Are you seriously trying to argue that a spoon is far more lethal than a taser? The taser has range, and completely incapacitates the target upon use. Then the taser-guy can simply take the spoon from spoon-guy and use it to scoop out his eyeballs while he lies there helpless. Worst case scenario, taser-guy misses and can still use his taser as a bludgeon while spoon-guy ineffectually tries to stab with his spoon.

There's just no contest here.

[nenjin]

What's really fucked up is...they talked to this dude for almost 30 minutes in the middle of a parking lot, and he still died.

It's like, you have his car, his info, justice would have been served eventually, was it worth shooting him for resisting arrest? Was it too much effort to chase him? Is resisting arrest a death sentence now, regardless of what crime you have or have not committed? This is the shit people can't take anymore. Human life, even criminal human life, shouldn't be this cheap.