Print

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

[Nadaka]

Ninjaboot.  Who the fuck here has said that the girl shouldn't be held responsible for her actions?

What we are saying:

Did she deserve to be arrested and put through legal processes to determine what punishments or rehabilitation procedures were appropriate in her case?  Sure.  Did she deserve to be killed extra-legally?  No.

Because the police never intended to kill her.  The actions the police took resulted in her death, yes.  But for you guys to argue or imply with 100% certainty that they wanted to kill her is just absurd.

You are completely ignoring the absolute and indisputable fact that this police officer has been trained in proper use of less lethal weapons and chose explicity to violate that training. You are ignoring that the police officer was sworn to obey and uphold the law. The law that he broke willfully and knowingly. He made the explicit intentional decision to take her life in his hands and risk ending it in violation of the law and his oath as an officer.

[lemon10]

Ninjaboot you make it very clear, you think she is of the "criminal" class and therefore deserves to be murdered for nothing. You don't give a damn about the law because you excuse the execution of a helpless woman because of who she is and who her murderer is. You are a vile, despicable and evil man. My righteous indignation and contempt of your moral inferiority is earned boy.

Seriously, stop with personal attacks and contempt.


That's not what he said.
That's not what he implied.
This wasn't a execution.
This wasn't murder.
This wasn't a "extra-legal killing"
She wasn't helpless.

I don't agree with Ninjaboot on most issues (far too conservative for my tastes), but saying that he is a "vile dispicable and evil man" is absurd.
She was running, and he used excessive force (tasing), which caused her to fall on the ground and die from hitting her head.
The officer shouldn't have done it, and it was probably manslaughter, but it wasn't murder.
The odds of killing someone with a taser is far less then 0.1%, you make it sound like tasing someone is the same as playing russian roulette, its not.

[NinjaBoot]

Regardless of that..

Nadaka, you still haven't answered my question on how you know what the cop intended to do. 

Others may have implied that the cop wanted to kill her.  I didn't.  My position is that the cop made an incredibly reckless decision that resulted in her death.  The girl was being arrested for recklessly endangering others in violation of the law.  Why shouldn't the cop be arrested for doing the same?

I would venture a guess as the courts cleared him of any wrong-doing because of the circumstances surrounding the whole affair. 

What they're saying, at best, is that he fucked up badly, but he shouldn't be held accountable as a murder (man-slaughter or otherwise) because the woman in question was responsible for her actions PRIOR to the whole affair happening.  If she didn't take the drugs and do what she did, he wouldn't have been put into a situation like that. 

The police themselves however, will come down on him hard for failing to properly secure the suspect in the first place.  Desk jockey for life maybe, being fired as a result at worst. 

[Nadaka]

Ninjaboot you make it very clear, you think she is of the "criminal" class and therefore deserves to be murdered for nothing. You don't give a damn about the law because you excuse the execution of a helpless woman because of who she is and who her murderer is. You are a vile, despicable and evil man. My righteous indignation and contempt of your moral inferiority is earned boy.

Seriously, stop with personal attacks and contempt.


That's not what he said.
That's not what he implied.
This wasn't a execution.
This wasn't murder.
This wasn't a "extra-legal killing"
She wasn't helpless.

I don't agree with Ninjaboot on most issues (far too conservative for my tastes), but saying that he is a "vile dispicable and evil man" is absurd.
She was running, and he used excessive force (tasing), which caused her to fall on the ground and die from hitting her head.
The officer shouldn't have done it, and it was probably manslaughter, but it wasn't murder.
The odds of killing someone with a taser is far less then 0.1%, you make it sound like tasing someone is the same as playing russian roulette, its not.

*It is exactly what he is implying. He is blaming the victim. Saying that she wouldn't be in that situation if she wasn't a drug user and criminal.
*Not execution/murder? Semantics. Brain death is the only thing that matters. An empty husk kept alive by machines is as no more human than a corpse. She is effectively dead. You may argue that it was perhaps manslaughter, but there are the extenuating circumstances of the police training, regulations for use of less lethal weapons and the police oath. He knew exactly what he was doing.
*Definitely an extra legal killing, again police regulation and use of a less lethal weapon not in defense.
*She wasn't helpless? Cuffed, unarmed and running away? Are you serious?

Regardless of that..

Nadaka, you still haven't answered my question on how you know what the cop intended to do. 

Training and regulations drilled into every police officer. They know exactly what levels of force are permitted under what circumstances and the potential ramifications of the application of force. He intended to use a potentially lethal weapon in a circumstance where it was unwarranted and illegal to do so. It is effectively the same thing as if he shot her in the leg "to slow her down" and severed her femoral artery where she bled to death.

[Lord Dullard]

Nadaka, you really need to chill out. Read what NinjaBoot wrote. The important part is what he wrote, not what you want to believe he wrote, or what opinions you want him to have so that you can tear him apart. You're making yourself look really ridiculous by arguing against statements and opinions that were never actually made.

[Nadaka]

I very much have read what he was been writing. And it is abhorrent.

Unless he clarifies himself or retracts his statements there is no way for me to see it any other way. But that is not what he is doing. He keeps blaming the victim and excusing the perpetrator of the crime.

[NinjaBoot]

*It is exactly what he is implying. He is blaming the victim. Saying that she wouldn't be in that situation if she wasn't a drug user and criminal.

Of course I am blaming the victim.  We wouldn't even be talking about this if she wasn't involved in two separate accidents due to her taking drugs.  Why should we rain on the cop for an unfortunate accident? 

Her place of origin or her demographic group has absolutely nothing to do with this whole situation.  Why do you keep insisting on it while we haven't even mentioned it? 

If you seem to associated "the lower class" with drug users and criminals, then that is your own fault for doing so, not ours.  If you seem to think that is something I do, then there you go again trying to read what other people are thinking. 

*Not execution/murder? Semantics. Brain death is the only thing that matters. An empty husk kept alive by machines is as no more human than a corpse. She is effectively dead. You may argue that it was perhaps manslaughter, but there are the extenuating circumstances of the police training, regulations for use of less lethal weapons and the police oath. He knew exactly what he was doing.

You seem to be under this mistaken impression that tasers are lethal weapons.

If they were lethal weapons, then the police wouldn't be using them in their force continuum policies. 

He was using something that was defined his his police training and regulations that would incapacitate a suspect with zero-chance to his own personal harm, and it resulted in her death.  That is not him wanting to murder/execute her.  It is an unfortunate accident that is termed "Man-slaughter", which is way different than execution and murder (the whole intent to harm deal). 

*She wasn't helpless? Cuffed, unarmed and running away? Are you serious?

She slipped one hand out of her cuffs to escape in the first place.  She was not helpless.  Who is to say she wouldn't have went for a policeman's gun? 

Regardless of that..

Nadaka, you still haven't answered my question on how you know what the cop intended to do. 

Training and regulations drilled into every police officer. They know exactly what levels of force are permitted under what circumstances and the potential ramifications of the application of force. He intended to use a potentially lethal weapon in a circumstance where it was unwarranted and illegal to do so. It is effectively the same thing as if he shot her in the leg "to slow her down" and severed her femoral artery where she bled to death.

Why do you think he used a taser?  He was following police procedure. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum

"While the specific progression of force varies considerably (especially the wide gap between empty hand control and deadly force) among different agencies and jurisdictions, one of the more general models cited in a U.S. government publication on use of force is shown below.[5]

1) Physical presence

2) Verbal commands

3) Empty-hand submission techniques

4) Intermediate Weapons e.g. closed-fist punches, kicks, baton, pepper spray, Taser, beanbag rounds and etc.

5) Lethal force."

She was running away, so 1-3 are out of the question. 

So that leaves us with 4, a taser. 

[SalmonGod]

My question is:  What was the threat here?  Why was the situation so dire, that he needed to cause her to immediately collapse onto pavement, which was obviously going to be the result of taser use at that precise moment and would unavoidably result in some level of injury.  It is very unlucky that she twisted and hit her head in just that manner, but even if that hadn't happened, she was almost certainly going to break something.  The whole point of the taser is that your muscles seize up, so she had no ability to control her fall.

The general trend among police these days that's pissing people off is they're incredibly callous about causing injuries to people that are completely disproportionate to whatever threat they pose at the time.  At worst, this girl could have had the ability to waste a few more minutes of their time.

[Nadaka]

Blaming the victim, justifying whatever happens to her as her fault because she is a drug user and criminal. That is exactly what you are continuing to do.

She slipped out of the cuffs? You lie. Watch the video. Her hands are bound together.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that tasers are not potentially lethal weapons.

Tasers are in the continuum of force to provide an additional option to respond to the immediate threat of physical harm by a suspect. Escalating to that level is absolutely forbidden without that threat.

Running does not preclude 1 through 3, it merely means he has to perform pursuit.

[NinjaBoot]

Blaming the victim, justifying whatever happens to her as her fault

I believe in personal responsibility, so I suppose that makes me a monster when I expect it from other people and accordingly hold them accountable for their actions.   

because she is a drug user

Well, if she was high on drugs, then yes, that would by definition make her a drug user.  Is she a repeated drug user or a drug abuser?  Who knows, but yes, she was using drugs.  Thus, "Drug user". 

Would it be more politically correct of me to say that she was a casual drug user? 

and criminal. That is exactly what you are continuing to do.

She was in the process of being booked for her crimes.  That would make her a criminal, no?

She slipped out of the cuffs? You lie. Watch the video. Her hands are bound together.

I stand corrected!

So, even if he did somehow end up tackling her, she wouldn't have been able to fully protect herself from the fall.  She would have gotten seriously hurt regardless of what happened. 

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that tasers are not potentially lethal weapons.

And what isn't potentially lethal? 

Tasers are in the continuum of force to provide an additional option to respond to the immediate threat of physical harm by a suspect. Escalating to that level is absolutely forbidden without that threat.

Running does not preclude 1 through 3, it merely means he has to perform pursuit.

Cops don't like chasing after suspects, too many chances people can get hurt.  Herself and others.  Who is to say she wouldn't have ran into the middle of a street with moving vehicles? 

[NinjaBoot]

My question is:  What was the threat here?  Why was the situation so dire, that he needed to cause her to immediately collapse onto pavement, which was obviously going to be the result of taser use at that precise moment and would unavoidably result in some level of injury.  It is very unlucky that she twisted and hit her head in just that manner, but even if that hadn't happened, she was almost certainly going to break something.  The whole point of the taser is that your muscles seize up, so she had no ability to control her fall.

The whole threat was not knowing what she is going to do.  What if she got away, got into another vehicle and killed people in another car accident?  What if she ran onto a busy street and got hit by a car? 

Or, you know, what if she tripped and fell and hurt herself trying to run away from the cop? 

The general trend among police these days that's pissing people off is they're incredibly callous about causing injuries to people that are completely disproportionate to whatever threat they pose at the time.  At worst, this girl could have had the ability to waste a few more minutes of their time.

At the same time people give cops no margin for error in doing their duties, ontop of people generally acting like complete dicks to them.  In this specific instance?  It was her belief in not wanting to own upto having a criminal record obviously, and thus wanting to avoid responsibility by running. 

[Nadaka]

Blaming the victim, justifying whatever happens to her as her fault

I believe in personal responsibility, so I suppose that makes me a monster when I expect it from other people and accordingly hold them accountable for their actions.   

She was never held accountable for her actions. She never got the chance to stand trial. She never got the chance to be convicted. She never got the chance to serve time.

And if you are so hardcore on people being held accountable for their actions, why do you refuse to accept that the police officer needs to be held accountable for his actions? The only reasonable answer is that you have a double standard, and you believe that some people should not be held accountable for their actions and others do not deserve justice for actions committed against them.

because she is a drug user

Well, if she was high on drugs, then yes, that would by definition make her a drug user.  Is she a repeated drug user or a drug abuser?  Who knows, but yes, she was using drugs.  Thus, "Drug user". 

Would it be more politically correct of me to say that she was a casual drug user? 

and criminal. That is exactly what you are continuing to do.

She was in the process of being booked for her crimes.  That would make her a criminal, no?

So, because she is a criminal means that any crime against her should be ignored?

She slipped out of the cuffs? You lie. Watch the video. Her hands are bound together.

I stand corrected!

So, even if he did somehow end up tackling her, she wouldn't have been able to fully protect herself from the fall.  She would have gotten seriously hurt regardless of what happened. 

Possible, but it would have been a legally valid action.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that tasers are not potentially lethal weapons.

And what isn't potentially lethal? 

Traditional restraint is far far safer, and guess what? it is the legal option available to police officers to stop a fleeing suspect.

Tasers are in the continuum of force to provide an additional option to respond to the immediate threat of physical harm by a suspect. Escalating to that level is absolutely forbidden without that threat.

Running does not preclude 1 through 3, it merely means he has to perform pursuit.

Cops don't like chasing after suspects, too many chances people can get hurt.  Herself and others.  Who is to say she wouldn't have ran into the middle of a street with moving vehicles?

Are you paying attention to what you are saying? Cops don't like chasing suspects? And that makes illegal escalation of force ok?

She isn't fleeing in a motor vehicle where she poses a lethal hazard to anyone, and even in that case police are not normally allowed to escalate to force. And it is becoming increasingly common to abandon pursuit if the speed surpasses a safe level, in order to protect bystanders, police and yes even suspects.

The potential that she may possible at some point put herself or someone in danger at some point in the future is absolutely not an immediate threat of harm by any rational or legal standard. The idea that it would be is completely ridiculous and deranged.

[Bauglir]

Being a cop shouldn't be convenient, or rather, you shouldn't be one if you want a convenient job. You should be one if you're willing to deal with extremely painful stuff on a daily basis, work to protect people who hate you (this includes criminals and potential criminals, for what that's worth), and generally make a lot of personal sacrifice to defend an ideal you believe needs to be defended, and do all that without letting irritation or anger affect your decision-making. Because that's what the worst-case scenario is (the inevitable scenario, in highly urban areas). Nobody's perfect, and I understand that, but people in positions of power need to be held accountable for their actions. Likewise, I and most people I know don't have the patience required to meet this standard - but we're not trying to be police officers. When you accept the responsibility of being a cop, you have to accept the responsibility.

[NinjaBoot]

OMG WEZ NEED TO QUIT DERAILING TOPIC, HURRRR!

OWS sucks, 'n stuff.. ya know? 

But seriously, I doubt we will ever agree on the situation, who was wrong, what went wrong, what to fix, where to start, etc etc..

so!

I concede the argument to you!

[SalmonGod]

Have been really busy tonight.  Not replying to nearly as much in this discussion as I'd like to.

The police themselves however, will come down on him hard for failing to properly secure the suspect in the first place.  Desk jockey for life maybe, being fired as a result at worst.

I've been trying to follow cases of police abuse for a while now, and it seems like most of the time nothing happens.  The most common scenario is the cop gets put on paid leave (i.e. free vacation) until the media blitz dies down and then things go back to normal with no other repercussions at all.  Plus, when the police publicly absolve an officer of wrongdoing, it tends tp mean exactly what it sounds like.  He's not going to see any consequences.

As one example that's close to home for me:  There's an ongoing case where I live where a cop plowed over three motorcyclists while driving drunk en route to a call, killing one and criticially wounding another.  The guy was measured at three times the legal blood-alcohol limit, but the blood tests were judged as inadmissible evidence because the two cops that showed up mishandled the scene.  They waited too long to get his blood tested AND took him to a person who wasn't licensed to perform the blood test on an officer.  After well over a year of court battles, it looks like he won't be caught on any alcohol-related charges, which will probably clear him of other responsibilities as well because then they'll be able to just treat it as standard collateral damage in the line of duty.  He'll probably be punished to some extent, but not nearly as much as a civilian would be.

But what's really ridiculous is the two officers responsible for mishandling the case were initially demoted... and then after most of the media attention died down, were re-promoted to positions higher than they previously held.  One is now in charge of his own precinct.  WTF

I believe in personal responsibility, so I suppose that makes me a monster when I expect it from other people and accordingly hold them accountable for their actions. 

There is so much more to it than this...

First, drug users can be products of all kinds of fucked up circumstances.  Some are introduced to the addiction by their parents.  Some are victims of other sorts of horrendous circumstances, and use drugs as an escape.  Some people are horribly educated about the realities of drug abuse, and how it will effect them.  Sometimes people slip drugs into other people's drinks, especially women.  There is tooooons of information out there about how people fall into downward spirals of addiction, that eventually lead to them doing really stupid shit. 

Second, what offends people about your attitude is you seem to heap all kinds of pre-conceived judgments on people based on shallow labels.  She was under arrest, therefore she's automatically a criminal, even though she hadn't been convicted of anything.  She was under the influence of drugs, therefore she's a druggie and responsible for whatever crazy stuff she does while under the influence.  Did you consider that perhaps she had mental issues?  Or perhaps the drugs in her system were put there against her will?  Now the truth is we'll never know what she actually deserved.

Not to mention, above all, that very very few people don't do incredibly stupid things around that age, and yet most manage to grow up into decently responsible adults at some point.  If everyone who did something stupid and reckless as a young adult deserved to die for it, there wouldn't be much of a human race left... and a lot of people who would have grown up into decent people would have never had the opportunity to do so.

But the impression you give everyone is that you just automatically assume she must have woken up that morning and said to herself "I think I know what I'll do today.  I'm going to pump myself full of some crazy shit and drive around town like I'm in an action movie!  FOR THE LUUUULLLLZZ!"  Therefore she's an evil maniac and deserves whatever she got.  Do you honestly believe that punishment is the only purpose of our justice system anyway?  Don't you think that sometimes people just need some help to get their lives in order?  Or is all right with the world so long as any person accused of wrongdoing suffers and/or dies afterwards?  You don't even know if she actually hurt anybody.  Leaving the scene of an accident is incredibly vague.  For all we know, she hit two parked cars in a parking lot.

So, even if he did somehow end up tackling her, she wouldn't have been able to fully protect herself from the fall.  She would have gotten seriously hurt regardless of what happened.

Why would it even be necessary to tackle her?  Seriously, how far is someone stuck in handcuffs really going to go?  There were multiple other officers around... with vehicles... quite frankly, if they can't retrieve someone with a major physical handicap from a pursuit right out of their own goddamn front door, then there must be some serious fucking incompetence involved.

The argument that she could have caused further trouble is kind of pointless, as it's justifying a bad thing as prevention of a completely unspecified potential bad thing.  The only one that even makes any sense, is that she could have run out into traffic... but she only got a few feet out the front door.  They had tons of time to act before that would have even been an issue, and if they can't chase her that far and still be in taser range, they must be so out of shape that they have no business being a police officer.

And another thing that really drives me nuts about this is how they don't seem to care at all that she's injured.  This is another one of those recent trends that is causing people to seriously hate the police.  They injure people all the damn time and do not give a fuck.  They will break a person's bones and then leave them in the back of a van for hours without a second thought.  In this case, the cops don't even bother to check her pupils to see how badly she's been effected by the head injury, or get behind her to make sure she doesn't suddenly collapse backwards and hurt herself anymore.  They all just kind of stand around like a bunch of idiots.  There is not the slightest evidence of concern.

Wait? A Baton is less lethal taser or pepper spray?

I would say a baton is less lethal than a taser or pepper spray, as long as it's not being used to recklessly beat a person over the head.  Being hit with a blunt object is likely to cause injury, but much less likely to have deadly unforeseen consequences.  Yeah, they kill people too, but I imagine 99.9999% of fatalities from a baton are from a couple cops holding down a person helplessly while a couple more beat the shit out of them for some extended period of time.  Tasers or pepper spray, on the other hand, can outright kill a person with a pre-existing heart condition or allergies.  With tasers, this risk is on top of the injuries a person is likely to suffer from an uncontrolled fall.  If this isn't already the case, officers should have it drilled into their heads relentlessly that every time they fire a taser or pepper spray at someone, they are rolling a die with that person's life.  They have no fucking clue if they are going to agitate some pre-existing condition and outright kill them.  To use those things in situations where it isn't absolutely necessary as a last resort is reckless endangerment on the same level as a doctor giving a patient penicillin without informing them or determining if they're allergic.

OMG WEZ NEED TO QUIT DERAILING TOPIC, HURRRR!

OWS sucks, 'n stuff.. ya know? 

And WTF is this?