Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FiLtH on January 07, 2008, 11:13:00 PM
-
Is it me or does it seem like every time ya turn around, someone is getting tazed? Taze first ask questions later.
-
that and warrant servings that "go bad" seem to be happening with more frequency... :noid
-
Well, actually, a lot of people are getting tazed when they would have been shot, or beaten senseless with batons, a few years ago. It also probably isn't happening that much more often, but more likely is just getting more coverage because it seems to be a favorite of the media and the viewers.
-
"DON'T TAZE ME BRO!!!!!!!"
68ROX
-
Incidents like the tazing of the guy for turning his back are indicators that a new 'acceptable standard' is being gradually set for pain compliance in law enforcement.
If the police carried cattle prods and casually tapped people with them for not answering fast enough, there'd be outrage.
But call it a Tazer and say "this is better than shooting him" or "this is better than beating him with a baton" gradually de-sensitizes folks to the point where the cattle-prod situation can exist without protest.
Y'all remember how to boil a frog, right?
-
You signature is required as your bond you'll either pay or show up in court and contest. It's real simple, if you don't sign, you're saying the law doesn't apply to you. It's JUST an appearance bond, not an admission of guilt.
If you read the ticket, you'll know what you're being charged with, it is that simple. Even if you don't sign, you'll know. How hard is it to read the ticket?
If the officer doesn't Mirandize the suspect, IF the suspect is questioned, anything gained from that questioning is inadmissible in court. You do not have to be Mirandized after you're detained, you have to be Mirandized before you're questioned. The officer only has to tell you he is placing you under arrest. I made it a habit to Mirandize suspects immediately after cuffing them, so that there would be no chance of them being questioned before being Mirandized.
Once you're failing to comply with an officer, he's likely to stop talking to you, especially if he's had to detain you. And yes, after I cuffed a suspect and put him in the car, I stopped talking to him, if he was not cooperative and compliant. If he was cooperative, I would answer most questions, if I could, and I'd tell him what was happening and would happen. If they do not cooperate, there's not much to gain by continuing to talk to them. If they do cooperate, you can talk to them to try to keep them calm and help them get through.
Most officers will try to make it easy on you in most cases, and even easier if you will be respectful and cooperative. The single biggest factor on how an encounter is how the citizen acts towards the officer. Even the officers with a bad attitude will most often be disarmed by the right attitude on the part of the citizen.
-
You know Tazers now come in a variety of colors including Pink for the Mrs.
I can see it now, Honey, step away from the computer, PLEASE!! Pzzzpzzzzz zzzaaappp, pop. Yes dearererer Plop!!
-
We are becoming more fascist everyday. Its getting so you can't book a vacation without getting zapped by some internet goose stepping star trek has been.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT1heZBxsFY
:huh
-
Originally posted by uberhun
We are becoming more fascist everyday. Its getting so you can't book a vacation without getting zapped by some internet goose stepping star trek has been.
Been listening to Mr. Paul's propaganda again?
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
Been listening to Mr. Paul's propaganda again?
Dr. Paul has some very good points. If we would have listened to him in 2002 we would not be in the mess we are in now yankedudel:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY
He is more Yankee Doodle Dandy then most in Washington!
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
Or if you would prefer no police at all...let me know how that goes.
might not be so bad if the police just went after the real criminals and left the citizens alone, or at least showed some respect to citizens that have committed some minor offense.
-
dear god.
john and i agree on something.
:confused: - now what?
-
Originally posted by JB88
dear god.
john and i agree on something.
:confused: - now what?
dogs and cats living together?:D
-
Originally posted by uberhun
Dr. Paul has some very good points. If we would have listened to him in 2002 we would not be in the mess we are in now yankedudel:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLV7zDhKzDY
He is more Yankee Doodle Dandy then most in Washington!
I dont see it as a mess. Dr. Paul is against a preemptive war. The war in Iraq, to me, is just another front on the "Global War Against Terrorism."
If you use Dr. Paul's definition of "preemptive" then we should not have gone into Afghanistan either. Afghanistan did not attack the United States, Al Queda did.
We are in a Global War on Terror. I do believe and most in Congress and the White house at the time believe that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. Let us not even mention nuclear weapons. We DO KNOW that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons for he had a past of using them on his own people.
Iraq, or at least Saddam Hussein's regime, at the time with the actionable intelligence available was a threat to the West's security. Had Hussein had chemical and biological weapons like our intelligence, that everyone thought to be true, there is not a doubt in my body he would have gotten it into the hands of muslim extremist terrorists to attack the west.
The United States and its allies rid the world of a brutal dictator and Iraq and the rest of the world is better off.
Just my $.02...that's about all it's worth!
-
Respect is a two way street. The driver in Utah NEVER showed ANY respect for the officer. Not once, not at all, period.
Ague all you want. The Utah driver never read the ticket, despite being given the opportunity. Watch the video, it is very obvious. I tried to find evidence that the officer did not give the driver an opportunity to read the ticket. Watching the video, I saw the officer walk back up to the vehicle, and hand the driver the ticket. Then the driver refused to sign the ticket, and demanded to dictate the circumstances of the situation. After watching the video again, I noticed that the driver never even tried to listen to or understand the officer. The driver was determined that he was going to force the officer to release him and not cite him. From the very beginning.
I NEVER said the police are always right. They aren't. I wasn't. No one is.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I NEVER said the police are always right. They aren't. I wasn't. No one is.
inow that's what i call that progress.
;)
-
Originally posted by JB88
inow that's what i call that progress.
;)
No, that's called having to have it spelled out for you, so you are forced to grasp the concept. I've been saying the officer in Utah was wrong all along. Had you not been so busy trying to trumpet you're own preconceived notions while ignoring everything else, you might have seen it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No, that's called having to have it spelled out for you, so you are forced to grasp the concept. I've been saying the officer in Utah was wrong all along. Had you not been so busy trying to trumpet you're own preconceived notions while ignoring everything else, you might have seen it.
:rofl
that was easy.
have you considered decaf?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
I dont see it as a mess. Dr. Paul is against a preemptive war. The war in Iraq, to me, is just another front on the "Global War Against Terrorism."
If you use Dr. Paul's definition of "preemptive" then we should not have gone into Afghanistan either. Afghanistan did not attack the United States, Al Queda did.
We are in a Global War on Terror. I do believe and most in Congress and the White house at the time believe that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. Let us not even mention nuclear weapons. We DO KNOW that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons for he had a past of using them on his own people.
Iraq, or at least Saddam Hussein's regime, at the time with the actionable intelligence available was a threat to the West's security. Had Hussein had chemical and biological weapons like our intelligence, that everyone thought to be true, there is not a doubt in my body he would have gotten it into the hands of muslim extremist terrorists to attack the west.
The United States and its allies rid the world of a brutal dictator and Iraq and the rest of the world is better off.
Just my $.02...that's about all it's worth!
Saddam Hussein actually was a stabalizing force in the region. Yes he was a tyranical despot we supported when it met our foreign policy goals. When he threatened Haliburton/KBR when he invaded Kuwait, off came the gloves. If it involves Globalist profits the government will act and only then. I emphasize (government) not us citizens. Our government through Collin Powel in the United Nations sold everybody on this WMD stuff. Of course he had bio weapons and chem weapons, we gave them to him. Needless to say, when old Collin fround out he was duped through fabricated intel. He resigned. US of A Best damn country in the world! Our service people the best! Our govt................well I really don't to say anymore about that.
Also Dr. Ron Paul, apparently his closet is full of skeletons too..........Just like every other career politician.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Uber.
-
Originally posted by JB88
:rofl
that was easy.
have you considered decaf?
:confused:
I don't drink coffee, or colas. If you think you provoked me, you are sadly mistaken. Or perhaps deluded. Having dealt with people as a law enforcement officer, I find you less than capable of provoking me. You just don't have it.
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
Except me. ;) :D
Somehow, I doubt it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I don't drink coffee, or colas. If you think you provoked me, you are sadly mistaken. Or perhaps deluded. Having dealt with people as a law enforcement officer, I find you less than capable of provoking me. You just don't have it.
obviously.
:lol
-
Uber,
I really have to disagree with you on the Globalist profits stand. Yes some companies have profited from the aftereffects of the war, i.e. Haliburton and Blackwater, but the services they are providing are very risky to human life. I would charge a lot too if I had to send my people into an unstable region to bring security and utilities.
Regards,
Yank
-
Originally posted by uberhun
Saddam Hussein actually was a stabalizing force in the region.
sure, he invaded Iran and Kuwait, and threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel.
saddam, the great peace maker. :lol
-
Although I respect the job police have to do, dealing with alot of garbage everyday, I think some may be a little quick on the draw with the tazers, from what Ive seen lately. Ya, alot of people probably should have just cooperated, and avoided the mess, but many times its a minor offense that turns into more than it should.
Remember that NH cop that stopped that geezer for speeding and the geezer freaked out, threw his ticket on the ground. The trooper calmly told him he would charge him with littering if he didnt pick it up. The guy did, and was swearing the whole time. The cop said Have a nice day or something at the end. No big deal. The cop did his job, and nobody was hurt.
Police are there to protect and serve. Protect the weak, and not their own authority status. Ive read of people doing less than the guy above and getting tazed. Its my opinion if a cop has reached a point where he is totally impatient, or frustrated by his job that he is quick to taze, he should find a new line of work.
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
Uber,
I really have to disagree with you on the Globalist profits stand. Yes some companies have profited from the aftereffects of the war, i.e. Haliburton and Blackwater, but the services they are providing are very risky to human life. I would charge a lot too if I had to send my people into an unstable region to bring security and utilities.
Regards,
Yank
Yankedudel,
My brother did two tours in Iraq 03,04, He said the best thing that happened is when Haliburton took over food services and water purification. The reason being the government could not take care of buisness. It was shortly after that Haliburton/KBR took over security and transportation. The Mercs get paid 100k a year as opposed to 30k a year for our troops. I challenge anyone to show me in this century when the United States employeed mercs at the level they do now.....It is a privateer war. The fact that industries like Blackwater exists frankly scare me. Will they be suplimenting our police now too? The things Bush and his boys have gotten away with are criminal.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html
Now we have this potential Gulf of Tonken thing happening in the strait of Hormuz with Iran. If it smells like it...if it looks like it and it attracts flies it must be deep ****......my .02$
-
Originally posted by john9001
sure, he invaded Iran and Kuwait, and threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel.
saddam, the great peace maker. :lol
John9001,
He invaded Iran when Cia director George Bush senior gave him the green light.
He invaded Kuwait because he thought his relationship with the United states would support it because we had propped up his regime.
(He did not understand global banking.)
He threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. After we started bombing him.
That area of the world only respects the power of fear and violence. No matter how moderate they may seem, they oppress their people with brutal efficience. We as a nation can not afford to police the world. Let the UN do that. And if they can't oh well.........
-
Originally posted by uberhun
John9001,
He invaded Iran when Cia director George Bush senior gave him the green light.
He invaded Kuwait because he thought his relationship with the United states would support it because we had propped up his regime.
(He did not understand global banking.)
He threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. After we started bombing him.
That area of the world only respects the power of fear and violence. No matter how moderate they may seem, they oppress their people with brutal efficience. We as a nation can not afford to police the world. Let the UN do that. And if they can't oh well.........
The Iran <-> Iraq war began in 1980, and ended in 1988. George H.W. Bush was the CIA Director under Gerald Ford, from 1975 to 1977. In 1980, George H. W. Bush was running for President and then Vice President, I do not think he was running against the sitting President, Jimmy Carter, while still Director of the CIA. So I doubt George H. W. Bush, as CIA Director, gave Saddam Hussien "the green light" to invade Iran. Especially since until Carter, Iran, under the Sha, was an ally of the U.S.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The Iran <-> Iraq war began in 1980, and ended in 1988. George H.W. Bush was the CIA Director under Gerald Ford, from 1975 to 1977. In 1980, George H. W. Bush was running for President and then Vice President, I do not think he was running against the sitting President, Jimmy Carter, while still Director of the CIA. So I doubt George H. W. Bush, as CIA Director, gave Saddam Hussien "the green light" to invade Iran. Especially since until Carter, Iran, under the Sha, was an ally of the U.S.
My bad on daddy Bushes career path Regan, GHWB gave him the green light.:aok
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
Remember that NH cop that stopped that geezer for speeding and the geezer freaked out, threw his ticket on the ground. The trooper calmly told him he would charge him with littering if he didnt pick it up. The guy did, and was swearing the whole time. The cop said Have a nice day or something at the end. No big deal. The cop did his job, and nobody was hurt.
I laughed my butt off on that one, the Trooper was pissing the old guy off even more by being so nice:)
I have never understood the reason for requiring a signature on a traffic citation, we don't in my state, it just seems to be way of implementing the escalating force doctrine when you get a leo with a chip on his shoulder running into someone with a crappy attitude, I don't see the positive.
shamus
-
Originally posted by uberhun
John9001,
He invaded Iran when Cia director George Bush senior gave him the green light.
He invaded Kuwait because he thought his relationship with the United states would support it because we had propped up his regime.
(He did not understand global banking.)
He threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. After we started bombing him.
yes, of course, i forgot, it's always americas fault, the great white devils.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Care to post the entire context of the incident? The officer did over react. But the driver also continually escalated the situation very foolishly. And had he done it 10 to 20 years ago, he'd likely have taken an bellybutton whipping. It's stupid to become confrontational with an officer. You won't win. You only make your situation worse.
By the way, I had an idiot do the same thing to me when I was a deputy sheriff about 20 years ago. I didn't taze him, shoot him, or hit him. But when he acted an bellybutton and drove off, I chased him down and arrested him for resisting arrest, wreckless driving, flight to avoid prosecution and a couple of other charges. All he had to do was sign the ticket. It says right next to the line you sign on "your signature is NOT an admission of guilt". The judge called him a fool and gave him 11 months and 29 days. He lost his job and his car, and barely kept his house.
Then you did the right thing.
and you didnt need to Taz of shoot him in the process. Imagine that.
In my eyes in that story you come out smelling like roses.
A cop who did hisw job the way it should be done.
And he comes off to me as being just as the judge says. a "fool"
Had you tazed him. In my eyes you would have come off as being every bit the jerk as the driver.
Arguing with a cop is no justification for tazing. Period
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
Or if you would prefer no police at all...let me know how that goes.
Works for me.
Im more then capable of taking care of myself.
But Im kinda old fashioned that way
-
(http://www.a-human-right.com/s_fightback.jpg)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Then you did the right thing.
and you didnt need to Taz of shoot him in the process. Imagine that.
In my eyes in that story you come out smelling like roses.
A cop who did hisw job the way it should be done.
And he comes off to me as being just as the judge says. a "fool"
Had you tazed him. In my eyes you would have come off as being every bit the jerk as the driver.
Arguing with a cop is no justification for tazing. Period
Ok, dont taz the driver, he jumps in his car, you have to chase him, he gets a couple miles down the road and crashes into a minivan with kids from a baseball game... :rolleyes: I say taz him, unless you prefer smacking them around or shooting them... that works too...
-
Originally posted by uberhun
My bad on daddy Bushes career path Regan, GHWB gave him the green light.:aok
Really? How so? In 1980, who pray tell was President? And what positions did George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan hold in 1980? And how did either give Saddam "the green light" to invade Iran?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Then you did the right thing.
and you didnt need to Taz of shoot him in the process. Imagine that.
In my eyes in that story you come out smelling like roses.
A cop who did hisw job the way it should be done.
And he comes off to me as being just as the judge says. a "fool"
Had you tazed him. In my eyes you would have come off as being every bit the jerk as the driver.
Arguing with a cop is no justification for tazing. Period
Had he crashed, and killed or maimed himself or others, would I still have been correct? Want to bet I'd have been sued? Hell, I got sued for hitting a guy who spit in my face and kicked me in the groin, while he was resisting arrest! You can bet that if the guy who ran from me had caused some sort of incident, I would have been blamed.
If the Utah officer had grabbed the driver, and stopped him from walking away, and ended up laying him out in the struggle, and the driver ended up with injuries, would that have been better than tazing him? Because you can bet that to arrest him because he refused to sign the ticket, you'd have either had to taze him, or physically restrain him by force. He was NOT going to comply, period. He was defiant even after he was tazed.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Ok, dont taz the driver, he jumps in his car, you have to chase him, he gets a couple miles down the road and crashes into a minivan with kids from a baseball game... :rolleyes: I say taz him, unless you prefer smacking them around or shooting them... that works too...
Shooting no. Smacking around I have no problem with.
My views on the Tazer are pretty well known here.
so I dont think I need to go through all that again.
And he only rockets down the road and crashes into a mini van if you feel your manhood has been insulted and decide to rocket after him.
You guys have radios.
Use them for something other then ordering dunkin doughnuts.
You have his licence number and his plate number. The color of the car. What he looks like.Unless hes from out of state odds are hes not planning on leaving the country over a traffic ticket.
No need to do your part to help create a dangerous situation because you cant stand the fact he ran away from you.
And lets be honest. you all dont go running after someone because they pose a danger. You do it because you are the almighty Policeman and you can.
Even a dog will only run from you so long as you keep chasing him.
I heard a report a week or so ago that more cops died last year in car wreaks then from gunshots.
Why contribute and add to a bad situation that puts the runner. the minivan AND YOU at added risk?
Is it worth it for a traffic ticket?
Next time try it my way. He runs after a stop. Let him.
Wait 2 hours then go knock on his door and pick him up.
Odds are thats exactly where he will be.
I never ran from cops not because I didnt know I could get away. Loosing the cop car was the easy part.
Reason I never ran was. He already knew my info. Where was I going to go?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Had he crashed, and killed or maimed himself or others, would I still have been correct? Want to bet I'd have been sued? Hell, I got sued for hitting a guy who spit in my face and kicked me in the groin, while he was resisting arrest! You can bet that if the guy who ran from me had caused some sort of incident, I would have been blamed.
If the Utah officer had grabbed the driver, and stopped him from walking away, and ended up laying him out in the struggle, and the driver ended up with injuries, would that have been better than tazing him? Because you can bet that to arrest him because he refused to sign the ticket, you'd have either had to taze him, or physically restrain him by force. He was NOT going to comply, period. He was defiant even after he was tazed.
Read above post for part of my responce.
the Jury is still out on the dangers of Tazing. to date little independant research has been done on the dangers of Tazing.
What little research has been done point to the Tazer as being potentially lethal.
All other reaserch conducted has been done has either been financed by. conducted by. or supervised by Tazer international.
tazer International of course denies any claims of it being a dangerous product
Thats kinda like asking the mafia to investigate itself for criminal activity and expecting it come back with an honest answer.:rolleyes:
My view. they should be taken off the market.
And cops should be forbidden to have them let alone use them.
Me personally I've stated how I would personally view a tazing on myself as a direct attempt on my life. And would respond accordingly.
-
Originally posted by john9001
might not be so bad if the police just went after the real criminals and left the citizens alone, or at least showed some respect to citizens that have committed some minor offense.
Makes them feel big and badarse cause they know the citizen cant do anything
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If the Utah officer had grabbed the driver, and stopped him from walking away, and ended up laying him out in the struggle, and the driver ended up with injuries, would that have been better than tazing him? Because you can bet that to arrest him because he refused to sign the ticket, you'd have either had to taze him, or physically restrain him by force. He was NOT going to comply, period. He was defiant even after he was tazed.
How about if the Utah officer had written "refused to sign" on the citation and left it at that. it was an option you know.
shamus
-
As it stands right now like it or not tasers are considered very low on the use of force continum.
They stand along the lines of pepper spray, below hands on contact with those who are resisting arrest.
Having said that I agree that "refused to sign" could have been an option unless there is a State Law that dictates otherwise that I am not aware of.
I also have to agree that "rocketing down the road" or engaging in a high speed pursuit of someone over a minor traffic violation, when you already have the information of the driver is risky and in my opinion foolish.
Most Police Officers I know have no desire to engage in any pursuit however at times it is an occupational hazard. It is dangerous for both the officer and the public in general. However at times necessary.
You should always factor in the gravity of the crime and the need for immediate apprehension against the dangers prior to engaging in a pursuit.
The typical response though that "police should go after real criminals" always amuses me. If it is a crime it is a crime. Yes some are more serious than others but breaking the law is simply that breaking the law. However, yes, police should treat people with the respect that they deserve. If you commit a minor offense and act like a jackprettythang to the police do you really expect you should be treated with respect. Respect is a two way street.
Yes Dred police have radios but to my knowledge a radio call in and of itself has never stopped any car fleeing from the police. And trust in the fact they are used in just about EVERY chase.
I also agree with your point Dred that arguing with a Police Officer is in and of itself NO JUSTIFICATION for the use of a Taser, or any other use of force for that matter. However, if after being advised you are under arrest you fail to submit to that arrest and try to walk away, run away, or in any other fashion remove yourself from the arrest is justificatication for the use of force. And as I stated, right now, Tasers are considered a lower level of use of force than any hands on application of force.
Unless you have walked in the shoes of those making split second decisions in situations that are rapidly evolving, tense and uncertain you probably have little idea as to what it is like.
However feel free to sit behind the safety of your computer monitors and look at every incident through the clarity of 20/20 hindsight, with time to think the situation through. And feel free to judge those who are in those situations, making those decisions in fractions of seconds, who know if they make a mistake it could cost them their lives.
As with any profession there are those that are good and those that are bad. To me personally, those officers that violate the law, while under the color of their authority as police officers should receive the harshest sentence for their actions allowable by law. They are below contempt.
It is unfortunate that the actions of the few, at times it seems to, allow those with personal animosity to paint all or most with the same wide brush.
Beleive it or not there are many, many more good Officers out there than bad ones.
Edit: Dred having re-read my post it sounded like I was directing the last few paragraphs at you.. I was not. <>