Free Republic

Again, if your argument is that tasers are not appropriate as a law enforcement weapon, then that is an argument for the manufacturers or the police hierarchy and civilian oversight with the power and responsibility to authorize the use of the weapon by the officers. It doesn't give you or anyone else the right to slander these officers as murderers. If it is an authorized weapon, and the situation calls for its use, then the cops absolutely should use it. Without question.

By the way, your approach is not conservative, it is narcissistic.

No, presuming that these men are innocent unless proved guilty is the conservative approach. If anything is narcissistic, it's your b.s. of implying these cops are "murderers" when they were, as far as we know, just doing their jobs appropriately.

Brian Williams just wanted to have some ribs at the Blues City Cafe!!

Baloney. Every indication here is that the taser was an authorized weapon. As such, its use was not wrongful per se. The only question is whether the level of force represented by the taser was appropriate under the circumstances. And there is barely enough evidence in this article to begin an investigation to reach that conclusion. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But we won't know until the investigations are completed.

They had no evidence this kid had committed any crime. His only "crime" was being a nuisance and ignoring their commands.

You don't know that. You have a partial report in a newspaper. This information isn't even second-hand information; it's third- and fourth-hand information. Until there is a full investigation you don't know what this person did, what his actions were, what threat level he posed or any of the facts necessary to draw a reasonable conclusion as to whether the use of force was appropriate.

Will you now offer that a public nuisance requires excessive force where they would have shot him otherwise? Is this what law enforcement has become today?

Again, you can jump to all the emotional conclusions you want, but I prefer to take the rational, reasonable, and conservative approach and wait until we have all the facts.

There is no excuse. Nothing can justify this.

Unless the decedent acted in a way to justify the use of force, of course.

Even if this were the case, I would not much care. I am posting to express my opinion, not to make anyone feel all warm and fuzzy. If someone chooses not to read my posts because they disapprove of my tone, that is their loss, not mine.

You have blatantly assumed that anything to the benefit of these LEOs should be stipulated, and that any idea counter to their benefit is simply paranoia, martyr complex, or stupidity.

No, I haven't. I have pointed out that there is simply not enough information to make any kind of determination as to whether these officers used excessive force, and pointed out the type and kinds of information which must be explored before such a conclusion is even reasonably possible.

Now, I have expressed the opinion that those who are making such an irresponsible leap as to adjudge these officers guilty before the facts are in are suffering from paranoia or a martyr complex, although I don't remember calling them stupid. (Not that I don't think that is necessarily an inapt description, mind you. I just don't remember actually using that word.)

It's sad to see someone so wrapped up in defending their own opinion that they must use pure speculation to defend against someone else's supposition.

Actually, quite the contrary. I am saying that everyone should not use speculation or supposition, and wait for all the facts to come in before deciding that these cops are guilty of anything.

Ever justified? Yes. Always justified? No.

Inferences can be drawn. The question is, are the inferences reasonable under the facts. Even if it were stipulated that tasers have been wrongfully used and have wrongfully killed citizens in the past, I know of no evidence to show that any wrongful actions have ever been established as against these particular officers. Absent such evidence, drawing such an inference in this case is unreasonable and should be discarded, pending additional information.

No need, I can year your shouts with just your text.

And now to further add fuel to the fire of your stereotype: Pr 15:14 ¶ The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.

As I am the one saying that we need more information about the specifics of this situation (i.e., I "seeketh knowledge"), and you are spouting ill-informed judgments about these cops, I'd say that you should really practice what you preach.

I imagine.....

Out of all of the issues raised in my (rather lengthy) post, all you care to comment on is the words, "I imagine"?? Interesting. Well, we can certainly see what your problem is.

Don't bother. It's a waste of your time, and does nothing for me.

If your concern is with the efficacy of tasers, then the circumstances surrounding the arrest should be irrelevant. There is certainly no reason to attack these officers. Your concern should be addressed to the manufacturer or those in the police hierarchy and civilian oversight who have approved the use of the device. Instead, we get people like you calling them sissies in such a cowardly fashion. Disgusting.

...and the Bible is an important part of the story because he wasn't carrying a weapon and was probably acting like your average street preacher.

You have no clue how he was acting. You don't know what his movements were, whether he was aggressive and threatening or how the interaction with the police proceeded. You don't know whether he assaulted the officers, whether he threatened a civilian, whether there was probable cause for arrest, or whether he resisted arrest. You don't know the manner in which he struggled with the officers, whether he was on any drugs. For all you know he was beating people in the head with the damned Bible.

Don't know if you have ever lived in a large metropolitan area and come across one on the street. Some I have seen act mentally deranged.

I doubt if any of these Crazy Shouting Jesus Guys are free of mental illness. What they are doing is inherently nuts.

This kid might have had biological issues (as has been reported in the articles you say are strong on hype).

Which is not dispositive of whether the use of force was justified.

Ha, since when has the lamestream media been sympathetic to Judeo-christian religious types?

Yeah, modern Christians in the most religious nation in the Western World are all a bunch of St. Stephens. They're fighting modern day Neros who have the temerity to wish people a "Happy Holidays" and the gall to request that religious texts not adorn public courthouses.

Instead of calling people who are troubled by what has been reported thus far, "cop haters" "paranoics" and people with "christian martyr complex" did you every stop to wonder like many of us are, why they needed TWO taser shots?

I imagine because the first one was ineffective.

More to the point, these people you refer to have not expressed that they are "troubled"; they have judged these officers guilty as ignorant Christophobes, based solely on the fact the guy is dead, it was a taser that was used, that he had a bible and was shouting about Jesus before the encounter.

Look, if you don't want to be called "cop haters," "paranoiacs" and people with "Christian martyr complexes," then stop acting like that way.

Yeah, you can call me judgmental and ignorant, it still appears to me to be bully SISSY police work.

You are judgmental, ignorant, and a lot of other things besides...

Of course he was bi-polar; he was a Crazy, Shouting, Jesus Guy. I doubt that any of those guys are free of mental illness.

But more to the point, the fact that he was bi-polar is, at best, one small fact necessary to determine if the use of force here was appropriate. But if he acted in such a way to require the application of force in pursuit of a legitimate police objective, and the amount of force used was appropriate, then the fact he was bi-polar, without more, means nothing.

But it is proper to start to ask how and what these officers were taught and trained in dealing with people like this, along with all of the other questions (and more) I posted in previous posts. Because that will determine whether the use of force here was appropriate or not, not knee-jerk opposition to cops or Tasers or knee-jerk beatification of this guy because he was a Baptist or held a Bible. Making a judgment without all the facts is quite foolish.

No, the story has the appearance of a standard lame stream media report--devoid of facts and strong on hype--getting a bunch of people's panties in a knot because they hate cops or have a Christian martyr complex.

Look at this thread, it's a cavalcade of uninformed ignorance passing judgment on a couple of guys who put their lives on the line every day because they think that anyone who is a Christian is automatically free of suspicion and therefore these cops MUST be wrong.

Not even trying to hide your bigotry, huh?

Not even trying to hide your ignorance, huh?

The term "Christian" was used as a modifier of paranoiacs to describe which subsection of paranoiacs I was talking about. As in, the paranoiacs who happen to be Christian. If I said that all Christians are paranoiacs, that could be bigotry (if it were shown not to be true), but by phrasing it the way I did, I was not being bigoted, just precise. I didn't want to smear all the paranoiacs with the taint of that which is particular to the Christian paranoiacs.

Did you learn that phrase in the academy?

Who said I attended the academy? 'cause one doesn't have to be a cop to get pissed off when cops are attacked without basis.

What were the lighting conditions? What were the circumstances of the the police approaching him? What actions did he take before the police approached him? What did he say? How was he acting? Was he holding the phone so that it appeared to be a weapon? Was he using it as a weapon? In what way, specifically, did he "struggle"? Did he assault an officer? Was he ordered to cease resistance? If so, did he fail to comply with that order? Was there probable cause to believe he committed a crime? Was he attempting to flee arrest?

The fact that he was a Baptist or was holding a Bible is irrelevant, at best. The fact that some people oppose the use of Tasers is also irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether the use of force was appropriate, regardless of the fact that this outcome occurred. And to make that determination, much more information is necessary than is present in this article, regardless of whether someone hates cops or has a Christian martyr complex.

And making judgments about the education and intelligence of these officers without that information is disgusting.

Do you know who these two officers are? Do you know their education history? Their training background? Do you know what specific things they were taught in Academy? Do you know the curriculum they were taught regarding the use-of-force continuum or in Taser training? Have you discussed with them why they discharged their weapons? Have you asked them what they were thinking? Have you spoken to one person or looked at one piece of paper, aside from a news story, to determine what happened here?

If not, then you are just as ignorant as everyone else; owning land in the next county doesn't mean squat. And your impugning of these officers is as disgusting as Kerry's statement.

There is nothing in the article which suggests that these officers were ill educated, nor does it attempt to give a full and complete explanation for the events of in question. Indeed, the story and the headline are designed to sensationalize the story and push the buttons of Christian paranoiacs and knee-jerk anti-authoritarians, not to give anyone sufficient information to determine whether the use of force was justified.

Duh Sarg....I think he would still be moving as we shock the hell out of him.

Yeah, cops are uneducated and dumb... How very Kerry of you...

I would agree that some religions are more likely than others to manifest their irrationality in ways which cause harm to people who don't subscribe to that faith. I'd also agree that a segment of Islam is currently experiencing this effect. However, it is ludicrous to assert that this is a problem unique to Islam. One would have to be laughingly oblivious to the history of Christianity -- with its pogroms, Inquisitions, Holocaust and crusades -- to suggest that this a problem solely of Islam.

Further, even if Islam is more prone to experiencing these problems, there is nothing about Islam that prevents a Muslim from living a peaceable life, as the many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Muslim who are not terrorists attests.

What it does share with every religion, however, is a basic irrationality, which causes religious adherents to accept irrational propositions and, as a consequence, to take irrational actions. And sometimes those actions are not only irrational, but evil. (And no, neither Christians nor Christianity is excepted from this...)

You do realize of course that a populist atheist could put forth a plan to rid the world of religion. He could get other atheists so enthralled that they become more concerned with the ends (no more religion) then they are concerned with the means (many religious followers would have to be killed). Now would that make the atheism itself evil ?

Well, no, if such a thing were to occur, then the actions taken in the name of atheism would be evil, but atheism itself would not.

But, moreover, the possibility of this actually occurring is so vanishingly small as to be nearly indistinguishable from zero. The hallmark of atheism is a reliance on rationality over irrationality. There would be nothing rational in killing religious followers in the manner you describe. It could come about by another irrational event, idea or ideology hijacking atheism, as was the case with the communists, but not through atheism itself. Such a thing would be stupendously irrational. (And, in fact, the group psychosis you describe -- whereby people are so enthralled with an end that they fail to examine the ethics of the means to bring about that end -- is just such an irrational event.)

And I don't blame all Catholics or all Christians for Hitler. Nor do artists deny the fact that Hitler was an artist because they dislike what he did.

No, I don't. I believe that religion is irrational and that religion has been used for evil ends, and that some religious beliefs and dogmas are evil, but I don't believe that religion itself, universally, is evil.

That is due to the nature of man, not due to the nature of religion. Atheists can kill just as easy as the Pagan Genghis Khan killed.

No doubt atheists can kill. But atheists don't kill because their atheism tells them to. When some religious people kill, on the other hand, they do so because they believe that their god or their religion requires them to. That is the difference. And that religion-inspired killing and torture is evil.

There weren't literally millions of data points supporting communism. There are millions of such data points supporting the Theory of Evolution.

Anyone who sees religion as inherently evil, fails to grasp the nature of man or the nature of evolution.

One can believe religion is evil and still understand human nature. There is nothing that says human nature cannot be evil. (Oh, and the "or the nature of evolution" is a total non-sequitur.)

For example, we fought for thousands of years before Christ or Mohammad even appeared. Yet the world is full of fools who claim that all our wars were started because of religion.

Not all of them. But it also foolish to argue that religion is some kind of unmitigated good, especially given the fact that countless millions have suffered and died on account of it and continue to do so to this day.

Well, the world is just coming up with a definition, not some theological purity test.

They may claim to be Christian, but that doesn't mean that they are Christian.

Since there is no objective, universally accepted definition of "Christian," then your opinion as to what makes one a Christian is not superior than anyone else's. My view is that if someone claims it, that's fine with me if it is at all reasonable. It doesn't mean anything about their beliefs or anyone else's, it just tells me what label to apply.