why would you tase a 65 year old man with heart problem all because, he didnt want to get on the ambulance!?!?!?!?!Police Taser Controversy - CBS News Video:smt076
Printable View
why would you tase a 65 year old man with heart problem all because, he didnt want to get on the ambulance!?!?!?!?!Police Taser Controversy - CBS News Video:smt076
Story goes that he made a comment in passing about how much pain he was in along the lines of "I'm in so much pain, if I had a gun I'd shoot myself in the head". The cops showed up to take him in for a psych evaluation. Which is retarded. Nanny Five O to the rescue.
The part I found disturbing was that they tased him 3 times and kept repeating "Stop resisting, stop resisting" when the guy was obviously incapable of resisting as he's writhing in pain on the floor.
Cops have a hard job, I give them credit for that, but that particular officer didn't use his head after the first time he hit the guy with the taser.
I think that particular LEO needs the psych evaluation.
Granted the use of the taser became excessive, it would have been in his best interest especially with a heart problem to not challenge an officer who had a taser pointed at him.
FD had better control of what was happening and should have been left in the leed LEO should have stayed in the background to protect FD. That is mt Monday morning quarterbacking.
" Nanny Five O"..............that's funny...........
A man in that state may not have the right state of mind. The LEO should have used better judgement when dealing with a 65 year old man haveing what appeared to a heart attack. This is just another example of an over amped cop. Granted they have a very difficult job, but too many times they are too close to becomeing out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by unpecador
Some people simply should not be allowed to work in law enforcement, and I think this is one of those people. It is really a shame when an officer does something so unnecessary.
I can only comment on what I saw in the video. I don't know what state of mind the man was in, he appeared to be angry, he also appeared to be comfortable sitting on the sofa and did not appear to be acting delusional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank45
I believe both the man and the officer could have used better judgment. I don't know what prompted the officer to draw his taser, my guess is he was overzealous but it appeared the situation was passed negotiation, and when a cop has a taser pointed at you, you should do what he says otherwise expect to be tasered.
It looks pretty straight forward to me. The COP was WRONG.
+1 ^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by TOF
Only one question. Was the 65 yr old man, sitting on the couch, already suffering, A THREAT TO THE COP OF ANY KIND?
Of course the answer is no. He just didn't want to do what the cop wanted. I hope this poor old man sues the sh!t out of the PD and wins enough money to be able to afford that ambulance. Geez.
All the cops thatat like to tought that taseres are safe and have NEVER been found to cause deaths,please MAN UP and eat your words .
Taser International Loses First Product Liability Lawsuit! | Total Injury | Blog
Too much to ask?
So, because a jury of 12 people who prior to this case likely had never even seen a Taser in action, much less understand the mechanics of what goes into its function, decided that in their most likely uneducated opinion it contributed to a death in this one instance out of THOUSANDS of Taser deployments which cause no ill effects, you want to ban probably the most effective less-lethal weapon ever created for law enforcement?Quote:
Originally Posted by theberettaman
So let me ask you this hypothetical....lets say Tasers get banned. Officers respond to some sort of disturbance where they are being attacked and pepper spray just isn't cutting it, nor are batons/nightsticks, they would use their Tasers but oh thats right they don't have them anymore because you banned them...the officers have no choice but to open fire at the assailant and despite getting hit in the shoulder which is generally a non-fatal wound, he bleeds out because, surprise, he's a hemophiliac and his blood fails to clot while EMS is on the way.
Well, the gunshot contributed to his death, so under your rationale we should ban LEOs from carrying firearms too right? :roll:
Bottom line is Tasers are vital, less-lethal weapons. Don't blame the equipment, blame the officer who used poor judgement and now has to live with that.
Another thought to consider is a saying lots of lawyers have..."a jury isn't composed of 12 of your peers...its composed of 12 people who weren't smart enough to come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty"....just something to think about :mrgreen:
Sorry,Thanatos hypotheticals are just poor strawmen all dressed up in fancy clothes.:watching:
I think it's safe to say that the use of Tazers has saved more lives than has been taken by their use. Here in NY, officers carrying a Tazer device have to be trained in their use; including standing at the business end of one for a sample.
WOW! clipping the probes on and being gently lowered to the big comfy mat by 4 burlrly cops, is NOT the business end of a taser.Now standing on the hard concrete and being allowed to fall and fracture your skull/knock all your teeth out because you are not able to protect yourself duribg the fall.Train like the real thing,and I'll be more in awe of your pathetic pro taser stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by MLB
I'll anticipate your response :Yes cops are issued GUNS and dont have to be shot with them.BUT guns HAVE NEVER BEEN MARKETED AS LESS/NON LEATHAL,EITHER.
Cops are afraid to use their guns and abuse the taser . as mebtioned in the OP.
So are blanket statements, but you already knew that right?Quote:
Originally Posted by theberettaman
To clarify my "pathetic pro-tazer stance", cops are shot in the back with it as part of the training. I'll concede that they are likely protected from the fall. The details of how (or if) they are shocked with the thing is irrelevant to the main point below.
My position supporting the use of Tazers is based on the first part (that you ignored). No one wants to take a life if they can avoid it. If you can stop a threat with a Tazer as opposed to a .40 caliber bullet, I support the use of the Tazer, and think that this is the rational position.
In the past, many of these situations (when non life-threatening) would have been handled with the repeated application of a baton. This point is a bit more arguable I think, but I'd still think the Tazer is the better choice.
I'd rather be tased then maced