Print

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

[MadocComadrin]

This is completely false. You may only escalate to potentially lethal force if there is an immediate threat of harm. There are no other cases where it is allowed. Period.

I didn't say he should have used lethal force, and it's true many places limit a fleeing felon law to non-lethal force unless the officer believes the fleeing person is a danger to others or an officer (which actually could be justified here)--the fact of the matter is, she was most likely a fleeing felon, and a tazer is categorized as a non-lethal weapon. The officer was within his lawful bounds, and any issues with taser-related death should be brought up with the company that makes the tazers under quality control, not the officer.

[Nadaka]

This is completely false. You may only escalate to potentially lethal force if there is an immediate threat of harm. There are no other cases where it is allowed. Period.

I didn't say he should have used lethal force, and it's true many places limit a fleeing felon law to non-lethal force unless the officer believes the fleeing person is a danger to others or an officer (which actually could be justified here)--the fact of the matter is, she was most likely a fleeing felon, and a tazer is categorized as a non-lethal weapon. The officer was within his lawful bounds, and any issues with taser-related death should be brought up with the company that makes the tazers under quality control, not the officer.

A tazer is potentially lethal weapon.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon.

I know what I am talking about here.

Less lethal weapons are allowed to be used ONLY when the suspect represents an immediate physical threat to the safety of a person.

An unarmed fleeing person represents no such threat.

The officer was not within lawful bounds at all.

Period.

[MadocComadrin]

A tazer is potentially lethal weapon.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon.

I know what I am talking about here.

Less lethal weapons are allowed to be used ONLY when the suspect represents an immediate physical threat to the safety of a person.

An unarmed fleeing person represents no such threat.

The officer was not within lawful bounds at all.

Period.

Saying you know what you're talking about and ending your posts with "period" makes you neither knowledgeable or right.

Of course there's no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon" in reality. Human bodies are quite fragile. That doesn't stop the law from classifying certain instruments as non-lethal when they have a high chance of neutralizing an person with trivial damage most of the time.

Tazers are classified as non-lethal weapons. This makes it perfectly fine for use in a fleeing felon case. If you want to debate whether or not a tazer should be classified as something more than non-lethal, that's fine and good, but it has no bearing on the case, and even if this case inspires that decision, no ex post facto means that it's irrelevant to the case itself.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It very well does have bearing on this case. It's not like this is the first time tazers have been used incorrectly, and it isn't going to be the last either.

That they are classified as non-lethal weapons is absurd on its face. Electricity is inherently very hazardous to humans, and any sort of deviation or condition from perfect health could be sufficient to make a tazer shock deadly. Or not even that, given that tazers cause you to fall down, which normally isn't very dangerous because you have control of your limbs and will instinctively protect your head. If you've been shocked, you are just going to fall over and can't shield your head (and by proxy, your brain) because your entire nervous system is out of your control.

[Nadaka]

A tazer is potentially lethal weapon.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon.

I know what I am talking about here.

Less lethal weapons are allowed to be used ONLY when the suspect represents an immediate physical threat to the safety of a person.

An unarmed fleeing person represents no such threat.

The officer was not within lawful bounds at all.

Period.

Saying you know what you're talking about and ending your posts with "period" makes you neither knowledgeable or right.

Of course there's no such thing as a "non-lethal weapon" in reality. Human bodies are quite fragile. That doesn't stop the law from classifying certain instruments as non-lethal when they have a high chance of neutralizing an person with trivial damage most of the time.

Tazers are classified as non-lethal weapons. This makes it perfectly fine for use in a fleeing felon case. If you want to debate whether or not a tazer should be classified as something more than non-lethal, that's fine and good, but it has no bearing on the case, and even if this case inspires that decision, no ex post facto means that it's irrelevant to the case itself.

THey are classified as less lethal weapons. Not non lethal.

And the rules for a police officer to use those weapons are very explicit and very clear.

Tazers may only be used when a suspect presents an immediate physical threat of harm.

That is the entire point.

Using the tazer was illegal.

[SalmonGod]

Here's an article on police protocols regarding taser use.  This paragraph strikes me as especially relevant.

The NYCLU said the majority of departments rely too heavily on Taser manufacturer guidelines rather than expert-recommended protocol from the Department of Justice or the Police Executive Research Forum. The report said 60 percent of Taser incidents analyzed did not meet the NYCLU's recommended criteria, defined as an incident where a police officer can document "active aggression or risk of physical injury."

Here is a PDF from law.standford.edu on taser use by law enforcement.  I can't read it at the moment, because for some reason it crashes in my browser at work after about 10 seconds.  Looks like it contains a lot of info about the lethality and injury risk of tasers.

[MadocComadrin]

Okay, I didn't want to go here, as it opens the semantic argument, but you do know that non-lethal and less lethal weapons are terms that are used interchangeably?

Second, the fleeing felon rule--the one I'm basing my argument off of--only disallows lethal force. Anything less than direct and intended lethal force is legal. Furthermore, the same ruling that put this restriction on in the US also assures that an officer's judgement in the field is not the same as reason in hindsight. He was within his bounds.

@SalmonGod: while the taser debate is helpful for the future, going on what the officer believed and the fact that there will never be ex-post facto, it's mostly irrelevant. The girls family could go after the taser company for misrepresenting the use of its products, the officer should not be punished regardless of the outcome. Likewise, using other techniques could have caused the same issue: a bolo, tossed baton, or tackling could have done the same or an impact weapon that hit the wrong place could have killed her outright (as stated earlier by others).

[Nadaka]

Okay, I didn't want to go here, as it opens the semantic argument, but you do know that non-lethal and less lethal weapons are terms that are used interchangeably?

Second, the fleeing felon rule--the one I'm basing my argument off of--only disallows lethal force. Anything less than direct and intended lethal force is legal. Furthermore, the same ruling that put this restriction on in the US also assures that an officer's judgement in the field is not the same as reason in hindsight. He was within his bounds.

@SalmonGod: while the taser debate is helpful for the future, going on what the officer believed and the fact that there will never be ex-post facto, it's mostly irrelevant. The girls family could go after the taser company for misrepresenting the use of its products, the officer should not be punished regardless of the outcome. Likewise, using other techniques could have caused the same issue: a bolo, tossed baton, or tackling could have done the same or an impact weapon that hit the wrong place could have killed her outright (as stated earlier by others).

You are wrong about the law. You are wrong about the effect of tazers. You are wrong that the officer did not break the law. You are wrong that the officer should not be held responsible. You are wrong that other means of apprehending her or even not apprehending her would not have been safer. You are wrong about every aspect of this issue. You have no ground to stand on.

[MadocComadrin]

Yet, you have made allusions to any laws stating the classification you speak of, and you have yet again stooped to using a psychological rhetoric (repeating "you are wrong") instead of actually pointing out where I'm wrong.

I on the other hand, just read another article on Tennessee v. Garner and have a better understanding of the fleeing felon rule.

[SalmonGod]

I don't really care about the law, because as it stands, I don't believe the law functions in its intended purpose of serving the public.

The law enforcement institution operates on fucked up priorities.  They justify dealing out punishment to people whose crimes have not been weighed or proven for reacting in ways that are natural for someone who is frightened or confused or even completely made up.  They take oaths to protect the public at their own personal risk, and then adopt protocols that offload any burden of risk back onto the public, designed to ensure that they're not the ones who suffer when they make a mistake.

Above all, I've never witnessed an officer showing a shred of remorse after someone else has suffered wrongly at their hands.  I have witnessed officers getting fired for refusing to follow abusive orders, and going on to protest the actions of their former co-workers.  I find the whole situation repugnant, and it's to the point that I find any interaction with police to be a potentially life-threatening situation.  Someone with a badge can claim that I made a sudden movement, and get away with murdering me.

And that's all I really have to say on that.

[MadocComadrin]

However, just because that can and does sometimes happens, doesn't mean it happens in every, or even the majority, of cases. Also, there are some corrupt police departments does not mean that the laws and precedence set up to regulate them were set up by corrupt people or are defunct.

[SalmonGod]

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 don't feel safe here.  Did I mention that I commute via motorcycle through most of the year?

And gauging by police handling of protesters around the country over the last 15 years, there are very few places where I would feel safe.  You might argue that there will be an abusive minority anywhere.  My response is if that were the case, the good majority wouldn't constantly be covering the asses of the corrupt minority.

[MadocComadrin]

If you're going off of solely how police treats protesters, then that's somewhat silly, unless you tend to take up a career in protesting. I feel safe enough between myself and my local law enforcement. Granted, I'm not in an urban area, and the chief of police is a family friend--but they're not all bad.

We've had a rapid advance in law enforcement tech within the last half-century. There are going to be hiccups, and due to the nature of the business, people are going to die from some of them and some of them will cause laws to be reconsidered and create new precedence. Vigilance is key--it really always has been. If this is the case that brings a huge magnifying glass over the use of certain newer weapons then so be it. Frankly, it wouldn't be a bad thing, since there's a psychological phenomena being observed that police like to play more often with their "new toys."

As for protests, while I don't condone many of the actions against the protests, I do tend to see the protesters somewhat setting themselves up for it as well.

[NinjaBoot]

There's been a lot of discourse about the connection between government and business, about how if our government is in any way going to pretend it isn't a bundle of hypocrisy it should hold bankers accountable, etc. I'm honestly surprised you haven't seen any of it, even if it is correct to assume you haven't looked too deep into the movement.

You are assuming I haven't seen it.  You could have saved yourself a bunch of words by asking me the question directly. 

What I am saying is that people seem to associate corruption solely with the Republican party, as if the democrats have been completely devoid of any sort of corruption.

Not only that, conversations about opinions of the government are automatic within the OWS. Due to its foundation, OWS is not politically affiliated as a whole, but its members (and supporters) have a wide variety of political beliefs (including no political affiliation themselves). The only thing that's certain is that members of the OWS are not happy with the current situation and believe Wall Street is to blame (at least in large part) for the economic state the citizens of the country are currently in. Due to America's prevalence in the world economy, this can be extrapolated to cover the economic state of other countries as well.

I suppose it would be too late to point out that their protesting do not really accomplish anything.  Did it bring any more attention to what was already widely known?  No, since most of what the OWS was protesting about has already been said by the Tea Party a year prior. 

However, simply acknowledging that should also lead one to conclude that if Wall Street is to blame, then were was a major failing on the part of the government to not protect the citizenry; such a failing may or may not be forgiven, but if the government does not place new restrictions or takes measures to prevent such action in the future or does not hold accountable those at fault, then opinion of the government will probably be much worse.

The government isn't going to police itself.  That is akin to asking a criminal to watch a bank and set policy, his salary, etc. 

The very same government that let this whole mess take place, and you would rather let them police themselves is not going to produce the results you are looking for.  Government officials only answer to a motivated voting public that is not afraid to toss their asses out the next election if they fuck up.

Look at what the Tea Party did the last senatorial election. 

After thinking about it, I can't really say that I dislike the Tea Party due to corruption. However, I notice in your second sentence you stick "Republicans" in there like a bad earmark on a budget reformation bill. If you seriously think no one believes that the Republican party is corrupt, you should really do your research better.

The Tea Party is a political party that is backed by citizens who actually want to see change happen in the Government.  I suggest you read up on them.

Eh, I guess I can't help it really.  Political biasedness!

Would it work better if i changed it to "Republicans and Democrats"? :O

So why the need to illegally occupy public

Wasn't illegal when they started doing it. Public officials began using reactionary methods to deal with them.

I suppose it depends on what the laws say regarding the use of public property (Anybody knowledgeable about this please correct me if I am wrong!).  I believe there are laws regarding assembling for a specific amount of time to protest in a public place.  This would involve buying permits to do so, since I have read about the Tea Party demanding their money back for paying for permits to protest in the cities where the OWS protested later and the same local governments didn't press them for anything. 

and private property

This was done once protesters were ousted from public property. I can only recall certain situations where the property was actually 'private' property, as in for all intents and purposes the property functions as public land, it is just owned privately and not by the city.

In Zuccoti Park, which was private land.  At the outset it appears (I am not entirely sure) that the owner let them use the land, thinking they would be out in short order.  When it became apparent of the health and sanity issues surrounding the whole place, he wanted to get them out. 

Over in Oakland, it was regarding public property. 

around the country?

...   I'm not even sure how to address that. Are you ignoring logistics, the lack of a central base of power for the OWS, the need to be public with the protests, etc.?

From what I have read, it appears the OWS is actually more about a leaderless, more horizontal structure (ie: more indians, less chiefs) which allows them to be somewhat flexible in what they do. 

The OWS protests are going on around the country (even the world.. Occupy Grand Prairie, WTF?), yes.. Oakland and NYC are the two biggest places where they have taken hold.  Nearly every other city has varying degrees to how many people are protesting. 

And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later? 

And let us not forget, the OWS, since it started, protested continuously about exactly what SalmonGod stated. Occupy Congress was an event that was held when it seemed that such a gathering might be feasible.

Again, so why did it take them so long to actually figure out what to protest about? 

They did not establish a "general assembly" until a few weeks into the protest. 

Which contradicts their stated goal as being a leaderless organization. 

Which means that nobody could have been protesting for the same thing until they all agreed on what to actually protest about, or establish any of this group-think mentality.  This is why the whole thing was aimed at Wall Street in general before they actually realized that Obama is an empty suit and started demanding government rid itself of corruption (which as I have pointed out earlier, is rather bizarre). 

You should seriously do your homework on this before making such claims.

I would like to think that I know enough about it to educate you on what it really is.  But then again, opinions are like assholes and everybody has two!

[SalmonGod]

If you're going off of solely how police treats protesters, then that's somewhat silly, unless you tend to take up a career in protesting. I feel safe enough between myself and my local law enforcement.

Not solely, but it is the one situation in which the actions of a large amount of police are subject to large amounts of scrutiny.  Otherwise, their abuses tend to happen in situations with few witnesses whose evidence is easily confiscated, leaving their accountability forfeit to benefit of the doubt.

As for protests, while I don't condone many of the actions against the protests, I do tend to see the protesters somewhat setting themselves up for it as well.

I don't disagree with this, and I don't approve of provocation.  At the same time, provocation does not excuse abuse, and there is massive amounts of abuse that happens at every protest event (even before Occupy) without any provocation.

And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later? 

And let us not forget, the OWS, since it started, protested continuously about exactly what SalmonGod stated. Occupy Congress was an event that was held when it seemed that such a gathering might be feasible.

Again, so why did it take them so long to actually figure out what to protest about? 

They did not establish a "general assembly" until a few weeks into the protest. 

Which contradicts their stated goal as being a leaderless organization. 

Which means that nobody could have been protesting for the same thing until they all agreed on what to actually protest about, or establish any of this group-think mentality.  This is why the whole thing was aimed at Wall Street in general before they actually realized that Obama is an empty suit and started demanding government rid itself of corruption (which as I have pointed out earlier, is rather bizarre). 

I'm seeing a ton of inconsistency here.  First, you agree that corrupt relationships between business and government are a problem.  Then, you say that it's pointless to protest the government, because it's not going to motivate them to police themselves.  Then, you go on to state that the movement is somehow discredited because it started at Wall Street instead of with some sort of attack on Obama, with the assumption that this automatically means the movement must have begun with some pro-Obama agenda and that corruption in government wasn't one of the initial focuses.  I get the impression that the only way you'd be satisfied with the movement is if it were formed only for the purpose of getting Obama out of office.

Also, regular general assemblies in relation to the Occupy movement pre-date the occupation of Zucotti Park on Sep 17th as seen in the 2nd paragraph here, and they involved educated people with solid ideas.  David Graeber himself is a famous anthropologist who has held positions at multiple prestigious universities.

And I don't know what supposedly contradicts their goal of being leaderless.  The whole point of the general assembly is it is designed to be a leaderless format for very large group discussion and consensus decision-making.