Yet another Best Buy consumer horror story -- woman tasered by cop.
Joe
others are not.
Rod Speed
> While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason others are not.
> http://muvy.org/new.php?entity=bestbuy
If you're actually stupid enough to behave like that, you can expect to get what you deserve.
Larry Bud
If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's
probably the safest method of subduing someone.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than the
woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
JL
> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's
> probably the safest method of subduing someone.
>
> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
>
> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than the
> woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
Yeah it's easy to second guess when a cop uses force against someone.
But in the moment, the officer has to protect himself and others. If
she would have cooperated nothing would have happened to her.
Rod Speed
>>> While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason others are not.
>>> http://muvy.org/new.php?entity=bestbuy
>> If you're actually stupid enough to behave like that,
>> you can expect to get what you deserve.
> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this.
Me too, and thats essentially what I meant in my previous.
> It's probably the safest method of subduing someone.
And the best way to discourage others from behaving like that too.
> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy,
> other than the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
Precisely.
Rod Speed
>> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's probably the safest method of subduing someone.
>> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
>> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than
>> the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
> Yeah it's easy to second guess when a cop uses force against someone.
> But in the moment, the officer has to protect himself and others.
And that is the best way to stop that stupid woman behaving like that.
> If she would have cooperated nothing would have happened to her.
And if she had behaved herself in the first place, it wouldnt have either.
A Texan from Connecticut
So if a cop decides to be an asshole that day, and you mutter
something, and the cop says "HUH, PUNK, this will teach you respect my
AUTHORITY" while you are on the ground getting tazered infront of the
whole store, it's all your falt, and don't deserve sympathy. After
all, a cop is also right.
On a somewhat unrelated note, maybe people should memorise the chant
"Sieg Heil". It may become the *in* thing very soon.
>
>
A Texan from Connecticut
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
So if a cop decides to be an asshole that day, and you mutter
something, and the cop says "HUH, PUNK, this will teach you respect my
AUTHORITY" while you are on the ground getting tazered infront of the
whole store, it's all your falt, and don't deserve sympathy. After
all, a cop is always right.
On a somewhat unrelated note, maybe people should memorise the chant
"Sieg Heil". It may become the "in" thing very soon.
>
>
clams_casino
>While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason
>others are not.
>
>muvy.org
>
Note that all muvy.org postings are SPAM - cross posted onto numerous
newsgroups to promote their spam site
ab...@verizon.net wants to hear from you if you don't want their spam.
George
The problem with your idea is that someday it can apply to you for
whatever reason that might be invoked. I may not like what others are
doing but I also know that I need to tolerate it because I want to keep
my rights of free speech etc.
According to the the article the police officer was not under physical
threat. It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.
Rod Speed
>>>> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this.
>>>> It's probably the safest method of subduing someone.
>>>> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
>>>> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy,
>>>> other than the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
>>> Yeah it's easy to second guess when a cop uses force against someone.
>>> But in the moment, the officer has to protect himself and others.
>> And that is the best way to stop that stupid woman behaving like that.
>>> If she would have cooperated nothing would have happened to her.
>> And if she had behaved herself in the first place, it wouldnt have either.
> So if a cop decides to be an asshole that day, and you mutter something,
She did a lot more than JUST mutter something.
> and the cop says "HUH, PUNK, this will teach you respect my AUTHORITY"
> while you are on the ground getting tazered infront of the whole store, it's
> all your falt, and don't deserve sympathy. After all, a cop is also right.
Nope, just like if you have a minor car accident, and chuck
a tantrum and start screaming abuse at the other party, you
shouldnt be too surprised if you get a reaction you do not care for.
> On a somewhat unrelated note, maybe people should memorise
> the chant "Sieg Heil". It may become the *in* thing very soon.
Nope, some have been claiming that for well over half a century now and it hasnt happened.
Rod Speed
> Larry Bud wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2:45 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Joe <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason others are
>>>> not. http://muvy.org/new.php?entity=bestbuy
>>> If you're actually stupid enough to behave like that, you can
>>> expect to get what you deserve.
>>
>> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's
>> probably the safest method of subduing someone.
>>
>> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
>>
>> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than
>> the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
> The problem with your idea is that someday it can apply to you for whatever reason that might be invoked.
Nope, I dont behave like that woman did, so it wont ever happen to me.
> I may not like what others are doing but I also know that I need to tolerate it because I want to keep my rights of
> free speech etc.
No one stopped her from politely denying that she was involved
in any fraudulent activity. She was tazered because of how she
behaved. Nothing what so ever to do with free speech.
> According to the the article the police officer was not under physical threat.
Irrelevant to whether she got the result she deserved.
> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.
It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively with that sort of outrageous behavior.
It stopped it very effectively indeed.
Dave Martindale
>> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.
>It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively with that sort of
>outrageous behavior.
>It stopped it very effectively indeed.
So would have shooting the suspect. The question is: was the level
of force appropriate to the problem at hand?
On one hand, the company that manufactures Tasers and the police
generally regard it as safe, with no lasting harm, so it's OK to use it
when just about any sort of force is justified. And it's applied from a
distance, so the police officer is less likely to get hit when using a
Taser than a more traditional method like a baton, making it attractive
to police.
On the other hand, people occasionally die after being Tasered, and
nobody quite knows why. So there's a good argument that a Taser should
be treated as a lethal weapon like a gun, and used only in similar
circumstances - when someone is threatening physical harm.
In this case, nobody was physically threatened, and the woman wasn't
trying to run away. Why couldn't the officer have called for backup and
arrested the woman that way?
Dave
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes
>>> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.
>> It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively
>> with that sort of outrageous behavior.
>> It stopped it very effectively indeed.
> So would have shooting the suspect.
Even you should have noticed the advantages with tazering over shooting.
> The question is: was the level of force appropriate to the problem at hand?
Yes, and the level of force that was used was
entirely appropriate when she behaved like that.
She wont be doing that again.
> On one hand, the company that manufactures Tasers and the
> police generally regard it as safe, with no lasting harm, so it's
> OK to use it when just about any sort of force is justified. And
> it's applied from a distance, so the police officer is less likely
> to get hit when using a Taser than a more traditional method
> like a baton, making it attractive to police.
Yep, its currently the best approach in that situation.
> On the other hand, people occasionally die after being Tasered,
People occasionally die after being physically restrained too.
> and nobody quite knows why. So there's a good argument that a
> Taser should be treated as a lethal weapon like a gun, and used only
> in similar circumstances - when someone is threatening physical harm.
Or the risk of death is so low that it should be treated just like physical
restraint is, used in more situations than just threatening physical harm.
> In this case, nobody was physically threatened, and the
> woman wasn't trying to run away. Why couldn't the officer
> have called for backup and arrested the woman that way?
Because tazering that stupid woman is a much more appropriate way to deal
with her and I bet she wont be stupid enough to try that sort of tantrum again.
Very effective and efficient education of even the most stupid members of the public.
Vic Smith
Martindale) wrote:
>"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.
>
>>It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively with that sort of
>>outrageous behavior.
>
>>It stopped it very effectively indeed.
>
>So would have shooting the suspect. The question is: was the level
>of force appropriate to the problem at hand?
>
>On one hand, the company that manufactures Tasers and the police
>generally regard it as safe, with no lasting harm, so it's OK to use it
>when just about any sort of force is justified. And it's applied from a
>distance, so the police officer is less likely to get hit when using a
>Taser than a more traditional method like a baton, making it attractive
>to police.
>
Should make it more attractive to the recipient when all is said and
done. Another term for "Use baton" is "club the SOB on the head until
he's out."
>On the other hand, people occasionally die after being Tasered, and
>nobody quite knows why. So there's a good argument that a Taser should
>be treated as a lethal weapon like a gun, and used only in similar
>circumstances - when someone is threatening physical harm.
>
"Suspects" were killed and injured by cops with nightsticks, saps and
fists too. Some of the so-called Taser deaths are because stupid cops
are prone to frenzy, and kneel on the Tasered's neck or chest when
he's down and writhing, killing him by asphyxiation.
A Taser is safer than being struck repeatedly in the head with a hard
object.
>In this case, nobody was physically threatened, and the woman wasn't
>trying to run away. Why couldn't the officer have called for backup and
>arrested the woman that way?
>
Agree. Though the woman may have been Tasered anyway, chances
are she could have been "talked down" or just restrained.
Police agencies are revamping and enforcing procedures for using
Tasers, much only due to publicity. Cameras play a large role in
capturing misuse, and I heard of at least one department requiring
camera equipped Tasers.
--Vic
max
Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
man that way?
> >
> Agree. Though the woman may have been Tasered anyway, chances
> are she could have been "talked down" or just restrained.
> Police agencies are revamping and enforcing procedures for using
> Tasers, much only due to publicity. Cameras play a large role in
> capturing misuse, and I heard of at least one department requiring
> camera equipped Tasers.
I've been thinking about Tasers and cameras since the Police Dept. in my
community of St. Charles, Il, bought 8 of them for $9600.
<http://www.rrstar.com/homepage/x2128346285>
I noticed an interesting thing about the camera-equipped Taser
(Tasercam)...
<http://www.taser.com/pages/VideoDetails.aspx?videoid=40>
<http://www.taser.com/products/military/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx>
The camera is mounted in the base of the handgrip, in the bottom of
what would be a magazine if it were an autoloading pistol. Take a look.
The camera is in the base unit -- that thing up front, under the taser
cartridge, is just an iluminator.
Tasercam only works if you shoot one-handed. No officer, nor any other
serious marksman, shoots one handed except in dire emergency.
It is almost exactly perfectly positioned to be covered by the officer's
left hand during Taser deployment. If you try to use any of several
conventional two-handed grips (which is what pistol marksmen practice
and use the most), you'll wrap your fingers or palm around the camera.
It is my considered opinion that Tasercam is a worthless sop
specifically designed to make hand-wringing, clueless, gun-phobic,
civil libertarians happy by providing them with the _illusion_ of
deployment witnessing, while in fact actually preserving the officer's
ability to deploy a taser without concern of after-action review. In
the timeless words of R. Lee Ermey, it is a reach-around.
I guaren-effing-tee you that the overwhelming majority of Tasercam
footage will be nothing more than extreme closeup pictures of the
officer's supporting hand.
I'm fairly certain i'm the first person to point this little fact out on
the internet. Mark my words, you heard it here first.
Tasercam is a scam.
.max
--
The part of betatron @ earthlink . net was played by a garden gnome
Vic Smith
wrote:
Maybe. I wondered about an accurate picture when I first heard of
them. Unfortunately, I didn't have the foresight to quickly post my
thoughts on it, so can't lay claim to usenet firsts.
But you *would* think the camera would work well before the PD's
banged their budgets purchasing them. Or maybe not.
I'll believe they work when I start seeing the recordings, ala dash
cams.
--Vic
Larry Bud
> Larry Bud wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 2:45 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Joe <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason others are not.
> >>>http://muvy.org/new.php?entity=bestbuy
> >> If you're actually stupid enough to behave like that, you can expect to get what you deserve.
>
> > If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's
> > probably the safest method of subduing someone.
>
>
> > Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than the
> > woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
>
> The problem with your idea is that someday it can apply to you for
> whatever reason that might be invoked. I may not like what others are
> doing but I also know that I need to tolerate it because I want to keep
> my rights of free speech etc.
Free speech applies to speaking out against the government in a public
place, not disorderly conduct at a place of business.
Larry Bud
> nobody quite knows why. So there's a good argument that a Taser should
> be treated as a lethal weapon like a gun, and used only in similar
> circumstances - when someone is threatening physical harm.
People have died with 4 or 5 cops wrestling them to the ground too.
So what's your point?
-
They gave them tasers obviously they think they should justify the expense.
No way a male cop should be intimidated by an irate woman, that has just
been accused, falsely, of doing something illegal.
I might not like being foul mouthed, if that is what happened but I
wouldn't subject someone, to a risk, of death, with huge voltage.
Demonstrating, that you have the authority and are in control, of
anybody and everybody because you wear a shield is not what protecting
the public is about.
If she threatened him physically or someone else is the only way he
should have used the taser, just the same as you would use a firearm.
The taser is an alternative, not a justifiable means to punish someone.
Joel Koltner
news:5t7r35F...@mid.individual.net...
> She did a lot more than JUST mutter something.
She was verbally abusive towards the cop, certainly, but she also had a pretty
good reason for being pissed off: She'd just been implicated of using a stolen
credit card! Most people would be rather perturbed in such cimcumstances...
The question is whether or not tasering is an appropriate response to someone
who's clearly agitated, verbally abusive, and basically being a royal pain in
the ass... but has made no physical threats, and is in a situation where, if
they are innocent, legitimately would be agitated.
> Nope, just like if you have a minor car accident, and chuck
> a tantrum and start screaming abuse at the other party, you
> shouldnt be too surprised if you get a reaction you do not care for.
That doesn't make it right. If you're having a verbal argument with another
party after a car crash and the other party gets mad enough to punch you,
guess who's going to jail?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> She did a lot more than JUST mutter something.
> She was verbally abusive towards the cop, certainly,
And there is no reason why she couldnt have politely
presented the story to the cop and she got what she
deserved when she was stupid enough to not do that.
> but she also had a pretty good reason for being pissed off: She'd just been implicated of using a stolen credit card!
Sure, but there is no point in chucking a tantrum with the
cop, all that can achieve is the result she deservedly got.
> Most people would be rather perturbed in such cimcumstances...
Anyone with any sense realises that the only thing that makes any sense at
all is to politely make it clear to the cop that there is no stolen card involved.
Why should any cop have to put up with some arsehole behaving like that ?
> The question is whether or not tasering is an appropriate response to someone who's clearly agitated, verbally
> abusive, and basically being a royal pain in the ass...
Yes, and that is the appropriate way to deal with someone like that.
She wont be doing it again, and hordes who are now aware
of what can happen wont be stupid enough to behave like
that if they ever get into that situation themselves in the future.
> but has made no physical threats,
Irrelevant. No one should have to put up with that sort of behaviour.
> and is in a situation where, if they are innocent, legitimately would be agitated.
Only a fool behaves like that when a polite explanation of the circumstances
is MUCH more likely to get the situation resolved much more quickly.
>> Nope, just like if you have a minor car accident, and chuck
>> a tantrum and start screaming abuse at the other party, you
>> shouldnt be too surprised if you get a reaction you do not care for.
> That doesn't make it right.
Doesnt make her behaviour right.
> If you're having a verbal argument with another party after a car crash and the other party gets mad enough to punch
> you, guess who's going to jail?
Irrelevant to what makes sense for the cop to do in the circumstances.
Why should the cop have to put up with that sort of verbal abuse ?
Why should the system have to fart around getting more cops on the scene
to deal with some stupid woman thats behaving like a 2 year old ? Makes a
lot more sense to just tazer her and put a stop to her tantrum immediately
and ensure that plenty of others dont behave like that in the future.
George
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Larry Bud wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 2:45 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Joe <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason others are
>>>>> not. http://muvy.org/new.php?entity=bestbuy
>>>> If you're actually stupid enough to behave like that, you can
>>>> expect to get what you deserve.
>>> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's
>>> probably the safest method of subduing someone.
>>>
>>> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
>>>
>>> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than
>>> the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.
>
>> The problem with your idea is that someday it can apply to you for whatever reason that might be invoked.
>
> Nope, I dont behave like that woman did, so it wont ever happen to me.
Reading comprehension problem?
Dennis
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Only a fool behaves like that when a polite explanation of the circumstances
>is MUCH more likely to get the situation resolved much more quickly.
Great, now I have to find a new irony meter to replace the one that
just went up in a big blue flash.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote
>>> Larry Bud wrote
>>>>>> While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason others are not. http://muvy.org/new.php?entity=bestbuy
>>>>> If you're actually stupid enough to behave like that, you can expect to get what you deserve.
>>>> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's probably the safest method of subduing
>>>> someone.
>>>> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
>>>> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy
>>>> store.
>>> The problem with your idea is that someday it can apply to you for whatever reason that might be invoked.
>> Nope, I dont behave like that woman did, so it wont ever happen to me.
> Reading comprehension problem?
Nope, your problem is elsewhere, between your ears.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Only a fool behaves like that when a polite explanation of the circumstances
>> is MUCH more likely to get the situation resolved much more quickly.
> Great, now I have to find a new irony meter to
> replace the one that just went up in a big blue flash.
You got sold a dud in the first place.
I'm not stupid enough to behave like that with cops, fuckwit.
Ed Stasiak
>
> The question is whether or not tasering is an appropriate response to someone
> who's clearly agitated, verbally abusive, and basically being a royal pain in
> the ass...
I'd say tazers were created for just such an occasion.
The other options are to either physically restrain the idiot (which
is
much more likely to result in injury, to both the idiot and the cop)
or
shoot them dead.
> but has made no physical threats,
So the cop ought to wait until maybe the screaming idiot pulls a gun
and starts spraying lead all over the store?
> and is in a situation where, if they are innocent, legitimately would be agitated.
Which the cop doesn't know and can't know because the idiot is
screaming at and running from the cop, possibly looking for a chance
to pull a gun or run from the store.
While I'm sure it happens once in a great while, I have yet to see a
case where the "victim" of the tazering wasn't asking for it. If
you're
going to behave like an asshole, expect to be treated like an asshole.
max
<4fc67d8a-e58e-48e8...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
"if you lose you temper and raise your voice, you deserve to be tasered"
gotcha
Ed Stasiak
> > Ed Stasiak wrote
> >
> > While I'm sure it happens once in a great while, I have yet to see a
> > case where the "victim" of the tazering wasn't asking for it. If you're
> > going to behave like an asshole, expect to be treated like an asshole.
>
> "if you lose you temper and raise your voice, you deserve to be tasered"
A cop is not a judge and the check out line of a store is not a court.
Screaming and behaving like an idiot will not only _not_ get you out
of trouble, odds are you will end up in _even more_ trouble no matter
how much "in the right" you originally may have been.
Just behave like a civilized person and sort it out in court, that's
why
we have them.
Anthony Matonak
...
> "if you lose you temper and raise your voice, you deserve to be tasered"
More like... If you lose your temper, raise your voice, cause a public
disturbance and then act very agitated in front of the cop that is
called to deal with you and refuse to stop when that cop repeatedly
tells you to... you deserve to be tasered.
I can see this as a punchline similar to "You know you're a redneck..."
"When you ____, you deserve to be tasered."
Anthony
Richard
as an agent of a mall or place of business. This police officer did not use
his authroity to protect the rights of anyone but exercised his discression
to use a device that in a way that was not intended by government. Only when
someones life or limb is in danger should this device be used, and even then
a less intrussive option should be used if possible.
Richard
Rod Speed
> The police have a Duty to protect the rights of the citizen and not to act as an agent of a mall or place of business.
Wrong when theft is a real possibility.
> This police officer did not use his authroity to protect the rights of anyone
Wrong when theft was a real possibility.
> but exercised his discression to use a device that in a way that was not intended by government.
Wrong again. Tasers were issued so they could be used instead of guns
when they are a more appropriate way to deal with a member of the public.
> Only when someones life or limb is in danger should this device be used,
You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
> and even then a less intrussive option should be used if possible.
There is no legal requirement to call up more goons
to deal with that sort of outrageous behaviour.
JL
It's easy to sit around after the fact and deem actions to be excessive.
One of my friends was charged with assault after he kicked someone in
the chest. He was walking down the street and a bum came running at him
with a hypodermic needle (the guy was a deranged junkie who was maybe
infected with AIDS/HIV). So my friend kicked the guy in the chest as he
got near him -- crushing the guy's ribcage. My friend was charged with
assault (later dropped to a misdemeanor). My friend might have saved
himself from getting AIDS.
Richard
It is called proper training. If the prospective police are adequately
screened before they are put on the street and adequately trained they will
not pull a gun or use a taser on an unarmed individual unless someone's life
or limb are in real danger. This does not seem to be the situation reported
in this case. There was no crime or violation of any law by the individual
who was tasered.
Richard
William Souden
>
> It is called proper training. If the prospective police are adequately
> screened before they are put on the street and adequately trained they will
> not pull a gun or use a taser on an unarmed individual unless someone's life
> or limb are in real danger. This does not seem to be the situation reported
> in this case. There was no crime or violation of any law by the individual
> who was tasered.
>
> Richard
>
>
Rod Speed gets mentally tasered in this group on a regular basis.
Rod Speed
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5tfufkF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Richard <rfei...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The police have a Duty to protect the rights of the citizen and not
>>> to act as an agent of a mall or place of business.
>>
>> Wrong when theft is a real possibility.
>>
>>> This police officer did not use his authroity to protect the rights
>>> of anyone
>>
>> Wrong when theft was a real possibility.
>>
>>> but exercised his discression to use a device that in a way that
>>> was not intended by government.
>>
>> Wrong again. Tasers were issued so they could be used instead of guns
>> when they are a more appropriate way to deal with a member of the
>> public.
>>> Only when someones life or limb is in danger should this device be
>>> used,
>>
>> You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.
>>
>>> and even then a less intrussive option should be used if possible.
>>
>> There is no legal requirement to call up more goons
>> to deal with that sort of outrageous behaviour.
> It is called proper training.
Its actually called effective and efficiently dealing with members
of the public that choose to behave like the stupid woman did.
You can be completely sure that she wont be pulling a stunt like that again, and
countless other individuals who have become aware of what can happen if you
pull a stunt like that when the cop warned her repeatedly, wont be trying it either.
> If the prospective police are adequately screened before they are put on the street and adequately trained they will
> not pull a gun or use a taser on an unarmed individual unless someone's life or limb are in real danger.
That aint the only reason that cops get to control the behaviour of members of the public.
Using that mindlessly silly line of yours, any criminal that chooses
to ignore a cops instruction to show that what he has just done is
reasonable in the circumstances with that possible faudulent card
use, the cop just has to shrug and let them go if they refuse to comply.
> This does not seem to be the situation reported in this case.
You're the one mindlessly asserting that tasers can only be used in that situation.
> There was no crime or violation of any law by the individual who was tasered.
That wasnt clear because that stupid woman refused to explain her activity when
there was a real possibility that fraudulent card use was being attempted and she
had attempted to flee the scene when the transaction could have been fraudulent.
Joel Koltner
> That wasnt clear because that stupid woman refused to explain her activity
> when
> there was a real possibility that fraudulent card use was being attempted
> and she
> had attempted to flee the scene when the transaction could have been
> fraudulent.
One salient point you're leaving out here -- and it's not clear whether or not
the officer knew it at the time -- was that she "fled" the scene upon
receiving a phone call. My first reaction would have been that, oops, her
mind switched to dealing with the phone call and she simply FORGOT to take the
card/finish the transaction -- it's interesting that at Best Buy interprets
this behavior as "likelihood of fradulent credit card usage."
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> That wasnt clear because that stupid woman refused to explain her activity when
>> there was a real possibility that fraudulent card use was being attempted and she
>> had attempted to flee the scene when the transaction could have been fraudulent.
> One salient point you're leaving out here
Because it aint relevant to whether she should have just explained
the detail to the cop instead of hurling abuse at the cop and deservedly
getting tasered when she was warned REPEATEDLY that thats what
would happen if she didnt just calm down and explain what happened.
> -- and it's not clear whether or not the officer knew it at the time -- was that she "fled" the scene upon receiving a
> phone call. My first reaction would have been that, oops, her mind switched to dealing with the phone call and she
> simply FORGOT to take the card/finish the transaction -- it's interesting that at Best Buy interprets this behavior as
> "likelihood of fradulent credit card usage."
All completely irrelevant to why she deservedly got tasered.
She was welcome to politely explain that stuff to the cop to make it
clear that there was no fraudulent card activity involved and to just
prove that it was her card, so the use of it cant have been fraud.
Joel Koltner
agree with you? I respect your opinion, but right now I'm very glad we live
in (more or less of) a democracy!
See you at the polling booth in 2008...
---Joel
Rod Speed
> Have you noticed, Rod, that a lot more people seem to disagree with you than agree with you?
I've noticed that a lot more disagree with any post than agree with it too.
Thats the way usenet works.
> I respect your opinion, but right now I'm very glad we live in (more or less of) a democracy!
You wont be getting the cops to only use tasers in life threatening
situations any century soon, essentially because they are a very effective
and safe and efficient way of dealing with fools like that stupid woman.
You'll never know just how many incidents like that wont happen in the
future because hordes are now aware of what can happen to you when
you are actually stupid enough to behave in the way that stupid woman did.
And you can be completely sure that she wont be doing it again herself too.
> See you at the polling booth in 2008...
You'll need miraculous eyes to do that.
clams_casino
>Have you noticed, Rod, that a lot more people seem to disagree with you than
>agree with you? I respect your opinion, but right now I'm very glad we live
>in (more or less of) a democracy!
>
>
>
You have that backwards. Rod disagrees with everyone (read troll).
He frequently takes both sides of an issue - just to be argumentative.