tazering, deserved or not?

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Then if he'd have begun to approach within arms' length, he'd have been shot. A lone officer isn't going to trust in a Taser.

When did Police Officers begin using deadly force against unarmed drunks? I don't recall this being the norm...in fact, I believe that is exactly what non-lethal force is for. Fists, Billy clubs, pepper spray and yes even tasers. A firearm is not a police officer's first line of defense, it is their last.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

When did Police Officers begin using deadly force against unarmed drunks? I don't recall this being the norm...in fact, I believe that is exactly what non-lethal force is for. Fists, Billy clubs, pepper spray and yes even tasers. A firearm is not a police officer's first line of defense, it is their last.

When were police given the hardware to read minds and X-Ray bodies from 30 feet away?

[Rider]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

When did Police Officers begin using deadly force against unarmed drunks? I don't recall this being the norm...in fact, I believe that is exactly what non-lethal force is for. Fists, Billy clubs, pepper spray and yes even tasers. A firearm is not a police officer's first line of defense, it is their last.

How do you KNOW he is unarmed? You don't. As a cop you HAVE to assume EVERYONE is packing heat until otherwise known.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Rider

How do you KNOW he is unarmed? You don't. As a cop you HAVE to assume EVERYONE is packing heat until otherwise known.

Of course you don't, and you assume he is packing, I agree. But you don't kill him until your own life is actually in danger...not when you assume its in danger, which is more in reference to PC's comment than the actual case at hand.

Its a fine line that requires good judgment in the heat of the moment. Not all people are capable of it, and those people should not be cops.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Of course you don't, and you assume he is packing, I agree. But you don't kill him until your own life is actually in danger...not when you assume its in danger, which is more in reference to PC's comment than the actual case at hand.

Its a fine line that requires good judgment in the heat of the moment. Not all people are capable of it, and those people should not be cops.

People who are dumb enough to approach someone who has a gun pointed at their centre of mass probably shouldn't DEAL with police.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

People who are dumb enough to approach someone who has a gun pointed at their centre of mass probably shouldn't DEAL with police.

Unfortunately you're talking about a large percentage of the American general public.

Not in any way advocating or defending the man's actions, he's an idiot, its clear for all to see. My point is that Officers certainly have to be held to a much, much higher standard than the public they deal with. In fact, they need a mentality of service and courtesy first, and that was not displayed in this video.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Unfortunately you're talking about a large percentage of the American general public.

Not in any way advocating or defending the man's actions, he's an idiot, its clear for all to see. My point is that Officers certainly have to be held to a much, much higher standard than the public they deal with. In fact, they need a mentality of service and courtesy first, and that was not displayed in this video.

I'd say the fact that he didn't shoot him puts him in that "higher standard" category.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'd say the fact that he didn't shoot him puts him in that "higher standard" category.

No, that means he didn't get a prison sentence for shooting an unarmed man. (Assuming he was in fact unarmed, which appears to be the case)

Him being able to respectfully diffuse the situation without violence would've put him in the "higher standard" category. Thousands of cops across the country do it everyday, this one failed.

[Tmall]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'd say the fact that he didn't shoot him puts him in that "higher standard" category.

Aren't you against the street racing laws in your province? Didn't you say you didn't like them because they were a means for an officer to dish out punishment on the side of the highway without due process?

I'm going from memory here, so feel free to correct me. But, I believe you said they essentially caused you financial hardship without the option to plead your case. Even if you're innocent, you still have to pay the fees accrued due to the impounding of your car.


Now, change all of that to "taser" and tell me what the difference is? Instead of money, they cause you pain and potentially stop your heart. They assume you guilty and enact corporal punishment on you, at their discretion.

Why are you for one and against the other?

[karl_1052]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

When did Police Officers begin using deadly force against unarmed drunks? I don't recall this being the norm...in fact, I believe that is exactly what non-lethal force is for. Fists, Billy clubs, pepper spray and yes even tasers. A firearm is not a police officer's first line of defense, it is their last.

Cops were also given partners to rely on in situations where physcial conflict is unavoidable.