Dashcam Shows Cop Tasering Teen

[Perknose]

It [the "authority" of my position as head mall cop here]surely frustrates you. It must be hard not to lose site [sic] of that charge to use your authority responsibly.

And I ask you. Why not abdicate that authority if it frustrates you?

See folks? This is interchange being the sly troll that he is. He's slick, often piously so, but the troll is there front and center. Let me point it out:

He states as his pious, learned opinion, that my 'authority' "surely frustrates" me. He states this as his factually unsupported opinion. Just two sentences later, my putative frustration has now become a fact, "Why not abdicate that authority if it frustrates you?"

It's a transparently bullshit tactic, all surrounded by a thicket of pretty words.

Now, let's get down to the truly deep troll, his attempt to use my position here against me, all the while disguising it as high minded discourse and pious concern.

interchange, in order to protect all of us volunteers on the moderating staff against trolls like you, we have a rule that, when a mod is posting in general forum discourse, you cannot bring his moderator status into it.

Now, you might try to claim that you didn't know that . . . you, who has been a member for at least 16 years. But you cannot claim that you don't know this now.

And so, troll that you are, if you try in any way to continue this line of troll discourse by further referencing my position, even as part of some clever troll response to what I'm saying to you now (trying to sneak it in sideways,) I will simply report you and you will be sanctioned.

I'm on to you. Your concern trolling of me by this gambit ends here. Right here.

Folks, pay attention as he now tries to frame his response, not in blatant victimhood, as that would be too obvious, but in faux high-minded discourse with just a hint at being treated SO unfairly, sadly shaking his magisterial head at the state of power in society.

 

[buckshot24]

About the same as a father who tells his son to stand up for himself and then gets curb stomped by some thug.

I assume....

You know what they say about assumptions? They are the mother of all something or other. Quit assuming and start asking instead.

 

[interchange]

He states as his pious, learned opinion, that my 'authority' "surely frustrates" me. He states this as his factually unsupported opinion. Just two sentences later, my putative frustration has now become a fact, "Why not abdicate that authority if it frustrates you?"

Your editing of my post eliminates my intended meaning. I did not intend to presume that any authority I possess frustrates you.

 

[Darwin333]

You know what they say about assumptions? They are the mother of all something or other. Quit assuming and start asking instead.

You are right.

Do you?

 

[Perknose]

Your editing of my post eliminates my intended meaning. I did not intend to presume that any authority I possess frustrates you.

Lol, troll, I'm not taking that obviously dishonest troll bait. Folks, don't feed this troll.

 

[buckshot24]

You are right.

Do you?

No I don't. There is a time to defend yourself and there is a time to do everything within your power to try and throw ice on a heated situation. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong if somebody dies or is seriously injured to the dead or injured.

I had a driver ed teacher say something to us that has stuck with me. It doesn't matter if you're legally right if you're legally dead.

I don't think the father SHOULD feel guilty I was just wondering if he did.

You have to choose your battles.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Do you think the kid's dad may be regretting his advice to his son? I know I would.

I'm really struggling to understand why he would regret giving his son good and legal advice? Following good advice does not always lead to a good outcome and that advice isn't to blame for the outcome. Captain Hindsight might suggest that people should or do regret the advice, but that's because he is judging the advice with knowledge learned after the outcome. Kind of like a smug and condescending asshole prick might.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I don't think the father SHOULD feel guilty I was just wondering if he did.

Horseshit. You aren't fooling anybody.

 

[AHamick]

The Father's advice being good is questionable. As I stated in a previous post you have the right to know why you are stopped, you do not have the right to delay or refuse lawful orders from a police officer. If the father simply said "they have to tell you why they stopped you and if you are free to go" while true the kid refused to follow commands to exit the vehicle because he believed he was required to answer before following commands. This is where the kid went wrong (the only place he went wrong)

If the cop tased him once, cuffed him and hauled him off to jail he would most likely be in the clear, as refusing to follow commands is a crime when stopped by the police. He can ask why all he wants but he is still required to follow commands while asking.

This typical situation unfortunately became a colossal mess when the cop overtased him and threw him to the street face first.

No one is trying to detract from the officer's guilt. He committed a crime and he was found guilty. What the cop did after being confronted with a kid illegally resisting his commands does not change the fact that the kid was in the wrong

I will happily recant my position if it is determined state law or department policy specifically requires officer to immediately inform people why they were stopped before continuing with police action but in general police are allowed to delay giving a reason within a reasonable amount of time.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[interchange]

Perknose, you seem to be trying very hard to illustrate my point.

 

[Darwin333]

No I don't. There is a time to defend yourself and there is a time to do everything within your power to try and throw ice on a heated situation. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong if somebody dies or is seriously injured to the dead or injured.

I had a driver ed teacher say something to us that has stuck with me. It doesn't matter if you're legally right if you're legally dead.

I couldn't agree more and I have said as much in this thread. Despite the fact that the cop is 100% in the wrong, and I firmly believe that one should be able to exert their rights especially to authority, the moment the cop said "you are under arrest" he should have complied. Beyond that he should have never resisted being pulled out of the vehicle, should the cop have been pulling him out of the vehicle NO, but your ass is coming out regardless if it's right or wrong so get out on your own.

I don't think the father SHOULD feel guilty I was just wondering if he did.

I assume he is thinking what else he could have told him but I think the father was working off the assumption that police are inherently the good guys. Unfortunately that wasn't the case in his encounter.

You have to choose your battles.

While I agree but only to a point, if we can't assert our rights to people sworn to uphold them then what good are they? Again, in this case that point is when the officer says you are under arrest.

 

[The Merg]

You just made my case for me, cycle says 10 seconds not 20 as the article and poster claimed. Try finding the one he used. The article says 4x too long, so they think they policy is 5 seconds which is probably accurate. As I said, every taser instructions I've been to say to use it more than once, until compliance is obtained or move to another tool.



I don't think how the cop acted was correctly, I just had a problem with the article's claim and then that of the poster regarding it.

Tasers used by law enforcement cycle for 5 seconds. If they hold down the trigger though, the cycle will continue to run until the trigger is released. In this case, the officer had to have held the trigger for the full 23 seconds.



- Merg

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[buckshot24]

Horseshit. You aren't fooling anybody.

With argumentation like that, how can I resist?

 

[buckshot24]

I'm really struggling to understand why he would regret giving his son good and legal advice?

Look at the state of his son. Was it good advice? It didn't serve him very well.

Following good advice does not always lead to a good outcome and that advice isn't to blame for the outcome.

"Blame" has nothing to do with it.

 

[buckshot24]

I couldn't agree more and I have said as much in this thread. Despite the fact that the cop is 100% in the wrong, and I firmly believe that one should be able to exert their rights especially to authority, the moment the cop said "you are under arrest" he should have complied. Beyond that he should have never resisted being pulled out of the vehicle, should the cop have been pulling him out of the vehicle NO, but your ass is coming out regardless if it's right or wrong so get out on your own.


I assume he is thinking what else he could have told him but I think the father was working off the assumption that police are inherently the good guys. Unfortunately that wasn't the case in his encounter.



While I agree but only to a point, if we can't assert our rights to people sworn to uphold them then what good are they? Again, in this case that point is when the officer says you are under arrest.

See how simple questions can illuminate hidden agreement? :thumbsup:

 

[interchange]

I hope this thread doesn't die. It sounds like there is some understanding and agreement on basic principles to the point where we can move on from finger pointing to maybe constructive discussion.

This is a problem that really concerns me. It seems like law enforcement and the public both are moving toward more and more antagonistic perceptions of each other. I am concerned that these perceptions will only serve to reinforce these events rather than serve to dissuade them.

I am hopeful that law enforcement in the US isn't so hopelessly broken that the public could not collaborate with them to work toward common goals.

Some things that I hope could be worked on:
1. greater transparency of internal processes to enhance accountability
2. greater ability to move internal investigations of police misconduct to the court when warranted
3. removal of special legal protections for LEOs when facing criminal charges
4. greater community outreach so that the public and LEOs can interact in a setting removed from any immediate need to take action as a LEO
5. as a community, a goal of peaceably interacting with LEOs and incorporating them into our communities as regular people when off-duty when we are not directly being challenged by them
6. as a community, a goal of LEOs peaceably interacting with the public and incorporating themselves into their communities as regular people when off-duty when not facing a need to engage as a LEO