So you are saying police should have special rights not granted to the rest of the US citizens?
So basically you don't agree with our constitution? OOOOOOKKKKKKKAAAAY
Cops deserve better. I am not going to say criminals have more rights than the police. I am nut kissing a criminal's ass.
again, she made a mistake....but that doesn't excuse mistakes from the police.
Well said.Oh and just to add to the ignorance of some of these comments,
"Non-Lethal" is a myth.
There only exists "Less-Lethal" and "Lethal"
a TASER is "Less-Lethal"
A beanbag round is "Less-Lethal"
A can of pepper spray to the face is "Less-Lethal"
A bullet is "Lethal"
A baton strike to the thigh/forearm is "Less-Lethal"
A baton strike to the neck/head is "Lethal"
Fuck, even tackling someone can cause braindeath. Tripping on your own feet can cause you to die.
I Absolutely, one hundred percent, believe that actions by police officers should be reviewed for justification. Once reviewed, if there are changes that need to be made to policy, by all means it should be done.
But to sit there in your armchair and say, "HE MURDERED HER WITH VENGEANCE! D: " is kind of outrageous...
I guess, it's not physically possible for everyone to have a calm position on things.
But if we didn't have people like OP, then perhaps things would fall back to ye days of old where police and criminals could get away with crazy violence where physical evidence wasn't available or didn't exist.
Look...did someone fuck up by not restraining her properly and monitoring her? Yes. Who knows why, maybe its because shes 100lb or the 15th time they've arrested her, and someone got sloppy.
Then...let's also look at where this happened. Florida is crazy town where crazy things happen. We get to all look at Florida from our barriers of sanity and think...how on earth could something like that happen here?
Spot-on. Running from the cops inherently means accepting a certain amount of risk, and occasionally that risk will result in death. Assuming this 267 pound cop could catch a 100 lb girl, his pursuit could easily result in her death from tackling her or running her out into traffic.Doing something dangerous invites consequences was my only point. And yes the girl holds some responsibility here unlike what many are saying.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree on the taser being a huge issue. I don't know enough about how dangerous they truly are - my understanding for the most part was that they are usually only dangerous to people with heart conditions.
That said I hold the girl at fault here for her actions. She'd be alive if she didn't run and didn't invite/create a dangerous situation.
What the fuck
Cops deserve better. I am not going to say criminals have more rights than the police. I am nut kissing a criminal's ass.
Yes? I see no reason why a woman in handcuffs couldn't be caught by a cop. Tasing was dangerous and unnecessary. Anyone tased while handcuffed stands a much bigger risk of a serious head injury vs someone who has their hands free to break a fall. Do you disagree with that?
Just in my armchair opinion...he probably used the amount of force allowed under his dept. policy
Hayslett said Cole violated his department’s taser policy which says clearly that “Fleeing cannot be the sole reason for the deployment” of the taser.
Actually I like the fact someone keeps this front and center on a regular basis. The vast majority of these cases, and the trend they represent, gets far too little coverage in the mass media.
What's particularly disturbing is the pattern that makes it apparent there is collusion between police, the DA, judges, and the police unions.
Why would you want it suppressed?
it's very difficult to run behind someone, and tase them, without also being able to be close to as fast or faster then the person you are behind. So the logic behind him being able to detain her with his hands, has some merit.
Now if the woman was a 6'0' 225lb man, Id imagine nobody would be posting this news article.
Just in my armchair opinion...he probably used the amount of force allowed under his dept. policy....could he have resolved the situation differently...probably.
Who knows though, she probably had crack feet and could have out-pedeled him once she cleared the door. He didn't look like a nimble character himself.
Tasers are often abused and used as deadly force. Just like when they tase someone over and over again, until they die on the spot. They are too cowardly to shoot a cuffed suspect, at least most of the time, so they just repeatedly tase and electrocute them to death, instead.
It's high time the supreme court weighed in on tasers and finally made them all illegal to use as lethal weapons of torture and death the way many fat and lazy cops are abusing them.
A young lady at 100lbs with her hands cuffed behind her back should not be that hard to pursue. The officer could have grabbed her arm and stopper her. Maybe this peace officer if unable to catch this girl he should have radioed for backup I am sure there had to be an officer fast enough to catch her close by. He makes the good officers look bad and his wanton lazy ass should be locked up for 2nd degree murder.
Firing the taser with intent to kill? I don't think so.
I oppose the escalation of force, the use of the taser, but at worst this is only manslaughter.
A young lady at 100lbs with her hands cuffed behind her back should not be that hard to pursue. The officer could have grabbed her arm and stopper her. Maybe this peace officer if unable to catch this girl he should have radioed for backup I am sure there had to be an officer fast enough to catch her close by. He makes the good officers look bad and his wanton lazy ass should be locked up for 2nd degree murder.
Did you read the article? The article alleges that dept policy says that fleeing can't be the only reason for tasering someone.
If true (We haven't seen the actually dept regs, so it's possible that isn't true), what is your defense now?
edit: beaten by MrPickins
So let's say he yanks her cuffed hands and she goes flying and lands on her head. Would you be up the cops ass about not tasering her?
I wouldn't be, in that scenario at least he made an effort. We're not cattle.
TASERS, contrary to common belief, have actually resulted in less injuries to suspects.
The chances of injuring someone when going using physical force are much less
http://www.ledgertranscript.com/home/7864795-95/police-say-tasers-safe-and-effective
NOW....do people get TASED when it isn't really necessary? Sure.
But on the same token, do you think people get tackled and thrown to the ground forcefully when it isn't really necessary? Sure.
The whole concept behind the thing is to take a situation where you may have to wrestle and fight a person, and just immobilize them and allow you to handcuff them.
The concept is NOT supposed to be, "REspect mah authoritah! zapzapzapazap" when it's obvious you could have resolved the situation peacefully.
sure, she is fleeing AND committing a crime by resisting arrest. Federal law states that fleeing "by itself" does not constitute probable cause for a detention or arrest.
Fleeing, a long with a multitude of other things, can help determine probable cause, however.
Also, I'm not trying to fucking defend this guy, I'm not him and I wasn't there,
So basically, once you do anything illegal the police can do whatever they want? its amazing how many people here that support that sort of thing. no wonder we have so much police abuse now.
Say she escaped......a policeman finds her a few hours later....do they have the right to shoot her then? Taser her? Beat her up?
if you think police abuse is on the statistical rise...you are not thinking far back enough. Whats going on is there is less police abuse overall, due to increased training requirements and also the easy access of video recorders. On a side note, more instances of police uses of force are being filmed...this creates the perception that abuse is on the rise.
the balancing act on how to respond to criminal acts is tricky and often changes, based on court rulings and legislated law.
Back in the day you could shoot any felon who ran from you. any...felon! you think abuse is bad now? people used to get their asses beat on the regular, and citizens never had a chance to bring it up.
Go talk to any old school copper and ask him if there was more abuse in the 60s 70s or even 80s and 90s.
if your mind is blown by someone using a less lethal weapon to subdue a criminal fleeing from arrest, your mind will explode when it finds the truth that mayberry cops were crooked thugs.
sure, she is fleeing AND committing a crime by resisting arrest. Federal law states that fleeing "by itself" does not constitute probable cause for a detention or arrest.
TASERS, contrary to common belief, have actually resulted in less injuries to suspects.
The chances of injuring someone when going using physical force are much less
http://www.ledgertranscript.com/home/7864795-95/police-say-tasers-safe-and-effective
NOW....do people get TASED when it isn't really necessary? Sure.
But on the same token, do you think people get tackled and thrown to the ground forcefully when it isn't really necessary? Sure.
The whole concept behind the thing is to take a situation where you may have to wrestle and fight a person, and just immobilize them and allow you to handcuff them.
The concept is NOT supposed to be, "REspect mah authoritah! zapzapzapazap" when it's obvious you could have resolved the situation peacefully.
it's very difficult to run behind someone, and tase them, without also being able to be close to as fast or faster then the person you are behind. So the logic behind him being able to detain her with his hands, has some merit.
Now if the woman was a 6'0' 225lb man, Id imagine nobody would be posting this news article.
Just in my armchair opinion...he probably used the amount of force allowed under his dept. policy....could he have resolved the situation differently...probably.
Who knows though, she probably had crack feet and could have out-pedeled him once she cleared the door. He didn't look like a nimble character himself.