KelliJ

No, I don't feel they are being used as a shortcut. I believe most problems with officers not using them correctly is a result of us still being on a learning curve as to the proper instruction on the use. That is, we are still learning how to train cops how to use them and when to use them. Absolutely and it goes back to training. But at the same time I think the use of firearms to gain control of a situation has been reduced due to the availability of a taser. Also, though it would be hard if not impossible to show statistically, I feel the use of a taser in some situations that demand less-than-lethal force has prevented undue injury to both cop and robber. A side-handle baton, when used improperly, can easily crush the larynx or fracture the skull, both of which have resulted in death. It would be wonderful if every situation an officer finds himself in could be resolved peacefully and without force. No matter what officers do there will always be those situations where force will be needed. It is also an unfortunate fact that when force is used there will be instances where a person is injured or, in rare cases, killed. We do what we can to make the use of force as safe as possible but we can't control every possible scenario.

It sounds like a lot of the problem with tasers comes from people who don't understand that even though they can cause death in a rare case they have saved many police officers and many suspects who were apprehended by use of a taser rather than use of a firearm. Try to focus on the positive side as well as the negative. If cops only used tasers in situations where they would use their firearms then why even have them? Maybe it's because, until somebody comes up with something that does the same thing as a taser but without the risks, it's the best we have to give our LEOs to fill the gap between trying to physically overpower a person and shooting them.

I happen to feel that you are wrong, so there. Nobody has said "I didn't fuck up, you don't know what it's like". What they did say was that a mistake was made and they apologized. Yes, cops are trained to operate in a high stress environment. They are also trained to make decisions based on the assumption that the information they have at the time is accurate and factual, not under the assumption it is false. They made the correct decision based on the information they had at the time they had to make that decision. Playing armchair policeman is safe and easy. Doing it for real is neither.

LOL!!...No, I am not.

When I mentioned he could have legally stopped them I was under the impression they were searching inside as well as outside his car. It wasn't until a later post that FTF told us they only did a walk around with a dog. Big difference.

The disparity between our opinions seems to be based on our view of the lethality of a taser. Yes, tasers have been blamed for deaths but those are rare and almost always there are other factors involved. In consideration of that I view tasers as being a viable less-than-lethal option that police have at their disposal. Faced with the options of physically overpowering the guy, tasering him, or pulling their guns out and hoping he gives up peacefully (all while keeping in mind that these officers were responding to a shooting and did not know it was a hoax) I still feel they made the proper decision facing someone they had to assume, under the circumstances, was armed. You seem to be of the belief that using a taser will cause death a substantial percentage of the time. If that were the case then any use of a taser is unwarranted unless that situation also warrants use of a firearm. Any use of a taser is subject to the question of whether or not it was necessary. Only those who face those situations can make that judgement, not us who sit in the safety of our homes looking at the situation in hindsight.

I never said being passive or non-compliant was being a threat. However, non-compliant is not passive and is, in fact, only a step away from being an active threat. Yes, cops signed on the bottom line knowing full well they could get hurt doing their job. In this case, though, they had every reason to suspect the man was holding a weapon since they were responding to a shooting and had no knowledge at the time that it was a hoax. To them it was very, very real. "Lets review this case: Say the man doesn't show his hands, the cops don't have a tazer but they have their gun, they draw their gun and order the deaf guy to show his hands, he doesn't comply. What's the next step? Shoot?" If we suppose there is no taser then it is not an accurate review of the case but instead a different case entirely. In the events you describe the only option is to wait it out. The guy isn't going to stand there forever. Luckily they had the option of a taser to neutralize any threat he may have posed without having to wait and see if he was hiding a weapon and taking a chance someone could get hurt by him. (BTW, getting stabbed or shot is a bit more serious than taking some "knocks") I stand by my opinion that the officers used the taser responsibly and as intended.

It really makes little difference how many officers are on the scene. If he won't show his hands then they have a choice to make- play it safe and taser him, or rush him and hope he isn't holding a weapon because if he is he will almost certainly injure an officer before they subdue him. I vote for taser. Too many of our cops get hurt as it is.

All fine and dandy as long as he could convince his assailant to attack him in front of the camera.

If I drive you to meet Buzz at his next public appearance will you call him a prick to his face? I think it would be funny to see Buzz pop you one right in the nose. Honestly, though, being called a prick by someone with cat whiskers (those are cat whiskers, right?) painted on their face would probably just make him laugh.

I liked how after the cop told twice him to turn around, he did, at which point the cop told him to turn around again. Then later, the cop tells the wife "He should have signed the citation. And he should have turned around when I told him to turn around." Apparently forgetting the guy DID turn around! That driver was obnoxious but not the least bit threatening. The cop was an overly aggressive idiot. Hopefully he's looked for work that better suits his skills. I hear the parking lot at Home Depot is hiring. Blues, Dave You are right. He did turn around after being told twice. He should have done it the first time he was told. But then, after he turned around, he started walking back to his car. He also did not put his hands behind his back like the officer told him. Instead he kept reaching into his pocket, an act most cops take VERY seriously when in a situation where the person is being uncooperative.

It seems these days that people are fond of referring to others as "sheep", but what exactly is a "sheep"? One form is the 4-legged wooly critter that hangs out in a pasture, but that is not the kind I mean. If someones values and beliefs happen to mirror those of a leader does that automatically make them a sheep? What if, to not be considered a sheep a person must go against their values. But, on the other hand, if a person goes against popular thinking to be like others who go against the grain, does that not make them a sheep that differs only in who they follow? I think there are some interesting opinions floating around.

"I found it amusing that he would waste the time of the drug task force and the taxpayers money after pulling me over for going a few miles over the speed limit. " That, dear sir, is bitching at it's best. " No law against telling an asshole to fuck off." Actually, in some states, it is illegal to say that to a cop. Same as flipping off a cop is considered assault.It is considered abusive language.

He wasn't out of bounds, he was well within his rights as you pointed out. If had gone ahead and searched inside the car without permission or warrant THEN he would have been out of bounds. There is no right or wrong in your case, only two sides that were both acting within their respective rights. And you are bitching. You're bitching about them wasting their time and you are bitching about the cops bring a dog out to sniff your fenders. Do you have a habit of telling a cop to fuck himself when they give you a ticket for a legitimate offense? If so, it is easy to see why they would hassle you like that.

I guess that's a pretty common stereotype of cops except the ones I know personally aren't like that. They all have the approach that only the obvious will give them cause for a search such as paraphernalia laying in the open, overwhelming smell of drugs or alcohol, or a person VERY obviously stoned. They don't want to waste their time searching unless they are pretty sure they will find something more than just a joint or two. But, at the same time, if a driver gives them a hard time by being sarcastic or disrespectful then they have no problem making absolutely sure...within the law...that they are an honest law abiding citizen. More times than not the treatment a person gets from the cops is directly related to how that person acts toward the cops their self.

I'm confused about something and maybe you can sort it out. In your earlier post, #155, you said the cop went out of bounds by keeping your car there so they could run a drug dog around it but now you say it was perfectly legal, which it was. Soooo....if it was legal then how was he out of bounds? You were well within your rights to refuse a search. The cop was within his rights to walk a sniffy pup around your car. You were the reason they spent "hours" searching for something that wasn't there so why bitch about them "wasting" their time even if you were within your rights to cause them to do so? Sounds like a case where two hard-heads met and parted.

"First, I never insinuated that you were a "whore" as you put it. I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. " Maybe from this? "You on the otherhand seem to be ever so anxious to bend over and spread em. " So, which was it? Was the search legal or not? If it was, what are you so pissed about? If it wasn't, why did you allow it? I've been wrong before but I have always been led to believe that refusal to allow a search is not probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Maybe there is something you aren't telling us that gave them probable cause. If there wasn't you sure have a good case for them having violated your civil rights.

"BTW, arrested for disrespecting the monarchy? WTF, over? " Just an exaggeration of an aspect of your society in response to an exaggeration of an aspect of our society by Flacid_Monk.

She could have had a knife or a knitting needle or a baton or any number of items. The cop did what he needed to do with her to keep her from making the situation worse for him, her, and her husband. She could have very easily been cited for interfering with an officer. Since you live in England you must feel comfortable counting on the mercy of criminals to keep you safe until the coppers arrive. That is, if they aren't too busy arresting people for disrespecting a member of your monarchy. What a bizzare fucked up way of living.

And someday we may figure out what causes gravity. Then we can try to figure out what causes those things that cause gravity. Science and research are never ending, virtually by definition. Religious faith starts and ends with a higher power, usually God. Q: If God caused gravity, what caused God? A: Nothing. God has always been and always will be. End of story.

Where did you ever get the impression I was against our rights? Yes, i do have a problem with unwarranted searches regardless of what is being searched. And no, i am NOT in a hurry to, as you put it, "bend over and spread 'em". I resent your insinuation that I am some sort of whore. But I can overlook all that since it is quite obvious you have neither the intelligence nor the good sense to actually protect your rights. By sitting by and allowing them to waste 4 hours of your time searching a vehicle that you didn't want searched you did, in fact, give up your rights. There are at least two ways that I know of that you could have LEGALLY stopped them from searching your car, but you chose to allow them. Shame on you for giving up you rights. I don't understand how someone can be so willing and uncaring about their rights as to allow the police to get away with that when it would have been so easy to stop. Then, instead of them wasting their time, they could have been catching real crooks, your car would not have been searched, and you would have been on your merry little way. Everyone would have been happy. But no. You allowed an illegal search, you're mad, and they got what they wanted...to search your car. Sucker!

Well, if you want to go far enough you can say everything anyone ever does has some sort of faith involved. The difference is in what role that faith plays in the circumstances. In religion, if something goes against popular belief, those who are among the faithful try to find the reason without disturbing their long held beliefs, i.e. "it's God's Will". In science nothing is too grand to be above suspicion and subject to revision, not even theories and supposed concrete facts, if new facts show the old to be wrong. So, IMHO, we do not take science on faith but rather hold it in a place of constant revision and, I might say, suspicion.

My limited education in physics tells me that there are basic forces including the weak force, the strong force, electromagnetic force, and gravity. Each is measurable and predictable even if we don't know exactly what causes them. Virtually all things scientific can be explained by these forces and sub-atomic particles. Religious faith is based on nothing more than faith itself. There really is no comparison that I can see.

It really, really, really says something about the culture that you live in that a hysterical, visibly pregnant woman is lucky not to get shot by an officer of the law for having the temerity to get out of her car! That is not an acceptable state of affairs, m'kay. I beg to differ, but maybe most of us feel it is an acceptable state of affairs when a cop considers a screaming hysterical pregnant woman to be a threat. In any case, it beats living in a country that bows to a queen or king just because of their family lineage. true, you just elect retards as your president, nice one Yes! We do elect retards as President.

It really, really, really says something about the culture that you live in that a hysterical, visibly pregnant woman is lucky not to get shot by an officer of the law for having the temerity to get out of her car! That is not an acceptable state of affairs, m'kay. I beg to differ, but maybe most of us feel it is an acceptable state of affairs when a cop considers a screaming hysterical pregnant woman to be a threat. In any case, it beats living in a country that bows to a queen or king just because of their family lineage.