Student tazed for not having ID

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Which is obviously a far better solution for American law enforcement rather then extensive training on "safe" restraint techniques or the application of reasonable force. Actually does anyone know what (or indeed if it has) the American legal systems definition of reasonable force is?

Yes its terrible that the police don't have the right to beat suspects during the process of detaining them... Criminals having more "rights" then police? Seriously?

Well.. first of all.. there's no such things as 'safe' restraint..

Secondly.. if you're trying to detain someone, and they dont want to be detained and become violent, what are you supposed to do, just walk away and let them go?
I'm not saying beating people is the answer, but the chances are, in a struggle, someones gonna get hurt. If you dont struggle, dont resist the detention, then you're not gonna get hurt.. simple really.


Al

[sylvianorth]

Originally Posted by sjonit

He didnt have ID. he refused to leave. He became abusive and aggressive. He was tazered......wheres the problem ?

I'm sure I read from other people who were there that he was pretty compliant with what they asked, he said he was just going to finish up then leave.

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa

If their rationale for disrupting a meeting is asking perfectly valid questions then fair enough.

Thats all you see in the video, but like I said, Kerry's blog claims that he forced his way to the front of the queue to ask questions and may also have been abusive to cops or other questioners. As usual, we dont have all the info.

Originally Posted by Dec

What on earth could he possibly 'deserve' to be tased for?

I can think of a goodly number of folks that could do with a good hard taserin', I have to say. I'd have tasered him just for being a loudmouthed arsebiscuit. That's why I'm not a cop, I guess. Cops arent allowed to electroshock folks just for being loud and obnoxious. Oh wait! Thats exactly what happened.

Originally Posted by sjonit

He didnt have ID. he refused to leave. He became abusive and aggressive. He was tazered......wheres the problem ?

See, that confused me at first. This is what happens when you mix two news reports up! Should have been a new thread, tsk.

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

Secondly.. if you're trying to detain someone, and they dont want to be detained and become violent, what are you supposed to do, just walk away and let them go?l

I wouldnt count raising your hands in the air, stepping away from cops, and proclaiming loudly that you haven't done anything as violence though.

Cheers!

[Largest of Als]

Originally Posted by UncleDave

I wouldnt count raising your hands in the air, stepping away from cops, and proclaiming loudly that you haven't done anything as violence though.

Cheers!

I was discussing a general point, as I assumed Mr Psych was.. since he didnt go into the specifics of this case.

Also.. if you're facing pissed off cops, and they're asking you repeatedly to get on the ground or stop whatever it is you're doing, even if you're standing with your hands in the air protesting your innocence, it usually makes sense to do what they ask... no?



Al

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

I was discussing a general point, as I assumed Mr Psych was.. since he didnt go into the specifics of this case.

Fair enough.

Also.. if you're facing pissed off cops, and they're asking you repeatedly to get on the ground or stop whatever it is you're doing, even if you're standing with your hands in the air protesting your innocence, it usually makes sense to do what they ask... no?

Usually, yeah. I can imagine myself being really pissed off though if I thought I was being arrested for no reason, maybe even to the point of not acting sensibly. And anyway, two wrongs dont make a right: if cops try to take a guy away when you've done nothing wrong, it cant be justified by the fact that they then go on to do something wrong later on. (trying to keep it general and not referring to that particular case)

Cheers!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Dec

What on earth could he possibly 'deserve' to be tased for?

He mentioned impeaching President Bush. Surely that's tantamount to treason under their administration?

Love this image so much.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by Largest of Als

Well.. first of all.. there's no such things as 'safe' restraint..

No means of restraint is entirely 'safe' in terms of being free from discomfort but there are certainly 'safe' ways of restraining someone it all comes done to reasonable force. Hell if they can be taught to care workers in this country I'm fairly sure they can be taught to the American police as well (although by all accounts the disparity in deaths due to 'improper' use of restraint (something like 16 odd in the UK compared with 160 odd in the US IIRC (not sure if thats just in care or altogether for all services using restraint like) begs to differ))

Secondly.. if you're trying to detain someone, and they dont want to be detained and become violent, what are you supposed to do, just walk away and let them go?
I'm not saying beating people is the answer, but the chances are, in a struggle, someones gonna get hurt. If you dont struggle, dont resist the detention, then you're not gonna get hurt.. simple really.

Reasonable force. Simple really the force used to detain someone should be the minimum amount of force nessecary for the threat they present. Doesn't nessecarily mean the police have less 'rights' in this regard there was a case somewhere (I think in the UK) where someone recieved a few cuts from a machete and that was deemed reasonable force. Mainly because he was holding a gun to someones head like.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Reasonable force. Simple really the force used to detain someone should be the minimum amount of force nessecary for the threat they present. Doesn't nessecarily mean the police have less 'rights' in this regard there was a case somewhere (I think in the UK) where someone recieved a few cuts from a machete and that was deemed reasonable force. Mainly because he was holding a gun to someones head like.

Yeah, reasonable force depends entirely on the situation.
This man, for instance, was quite rightly (in my opinion) acquitted for firing a harpoon into another man's face, irreversibly blinding him. It was reasonable force for self defence under the circumstances (plus, it's a cool X-ray).

That farmer, Tony something, who had the Daily Mail, The Sun and Littlejohn blowing their tops when he got five years in prison for shooting a burglar dead, on the other hand, deserved to go to prison. He shot a boy in the back with a shotgun when the boy was several feet away, climbing through a window in the opposite direction, trying to escape.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

That farmer, Tony something, who had the Daily Mail, The Sun and Littlejohn blowing their tops when he got five years in prison for shooting a burglar dead, on the other hand, deserved to go to prison. He shot a boy in the back with a shotgun when the boy was several feet away, climbing through a window in the opposite direction, trying to escape.

Tony Martin aye, reasonable force is pretty much only to protect people not property.

[Largest of Als]

See, personally, I think there's nothing wrong with defending yourself inside your own home.

If someone broke into my house and threatened me, and I had a shotgun, I'd do exactly what he did. I nkow the argument thats coming.. 'oh, but the poor wee burglar was trying to escape..', given the situation, of coming face to face with an intuder in your house, and you've got no idea what his intentions are, are you willing to take the chance he might not turn on you?

I think we just have totaly differnt opinions on this, and ther's no point in you trying to convince me you're right and I'm wrong.

Just dont try and break into my house and you'll be fine


Al

[endless psych]

Defending yourself is all fine and well, if indeed you are defending yourself and not your property or firing shots at fleeing burgulars. Its not a case of the 'poor wee burgular was trying to escape' its a case of the farmer becoming essentially a vigilante and I don't agree with vigilantism.

[MarkMono]

Depends entirely whether or not you equate theft with violence. I find that assuming that a burglar is necessarily even capable of violence nothing more than a logical fallacy.

[Dec]

lol @ shooting an unarmed burglar being considered 'self defense'

[MarkMono]

lol @ shooting an unarmed anyone based on what you don't know about them.

[endless psych]

Personally I don't equate theft with violence, but that might just be because I don't really have any possessions I am that attatched to.