Posted on 07/20/2008 1:16:07 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Yes, there is a problem. As I have steadily maintained on this thread, the officer was in the wrong for holding the trigger for 37 seconds.
However, not to the degree of manslaughter as some have suggested, and certainly not warranting that he be termed a “punk bitch” as another posted.
I’m not sure what you mean by “screwed yourself”. Since this is simply a discussion, what possible negative outcome could I possibly get?
Also, the question as to why the cop insisted on continuing the tasering is a question to be asked of the officer, not me.
I only know what he stated.
I happen to be one of the locals who is pointing out that this article appears to be a piece of disinformation and selective propaganda.
I have maintained that officer was in the wrong for tasering the suspect for 37 seconds, but the death appears to be accidental and not intentional.
Please re-read my post again to which you are responding.
I did not state that the 37 seconds of tasering was accidental, but that the death was accidental.
I do not believe that the officer’s intent was for the suspect to die; therefore, the death was accidental as opposed to intentional.
Are you suggesting that killing innocent people is the right remedy for killing innocent people?
What is the difference? The kid is dead. It is his ACTIONS we judge, not his pure and honest intentions.
Ditto that.
If it's a bad story about someone "we" like, we're all about how biased the LSM are.
If it's about a bad cop, it's Gospel.
I don't get it, either.
Seems like a lot of times tasers are used as first resorts.
Why didn't the kid just cease his threatening behaviour upon seeing the officer?
The kid caused the situation and also caused his own death.
There is a big difference in the assumption of what you think I wrote as opposed to what I actually wrote.
Intentions are also given a great deal of weight in regards to the law. That is one of the reasons that DA’s have first, second or third degree homicide in cases of death (not that I am suggesting any of the three apply here, merely that intentions do matter to our legal system.)
Finally, I would say that there is a big difference between the assumption that one would accidentally hold down a trigger for 37 seconds (which even the officer is not claiming is an accident) and the desired outcome of a subdued suspect as opposed to a dead suspect. The death of the suspect is accidental and the officer claims was not intentional. The trigger pull of thirty-seven seconds was not accidental.
True. Most "less-lethal" weapons can be used in a lethal manner. On many departments, "lethal" includes using any weapon in a manner that can produce both death or serious bodily injury. No one weapon, less-lethal or not, should be a cure-all for any situation. There are times when just using your "defensive tactics" skills are all that's required.
From what I saw on the video, the suspect seemed to be just walking away without any reaction at all. Little wonder the cop didn't think it was working.
The only alternatives that I can see is risk the officer's life, or kill the sucker...
Lost in the bleeding heart argument is the fact that the one ultimately in control is the out of control idiot...
I hate Monday Morning Quarterbacking where innocent lives are on the line.
I’m not saying that the officer was not guilty of improper procedure and clearly that was a contributing factor with disastrous results.
However, the media is known for trying to elicit a knee-jerk, emotional response by “spinning” stories the way they want them and rarely reporting the entire facts.
As conservatives, we are the ones who usually wind up being on the short end of the stick when it comes to the media’s shuck and jive hustle.
That’s why I’m so surprised that so many on this thread are seeming to take the news media’s story at face value and not reserve judgement.
Have we learned nothing?
Glad neither the cop nor the supervisor ended up dead.
Let me find my miniature violin...
The video is edited. You can see in the moments before what is shown at the link posted on this thread, that the suspect is yelling and throwing things off the counter at the manager.
There was definitely a need to subdue him. I don’t agree with the use of the taser for 37 seconds, but the whole story is not being reported here.
Yep, I noticed that as well. It seems to back up the officer’s statement. Not that it justifies using the taser for that length of time, but it gives a great deal of credence to the officer’s side of the story.
Perhaps it's time you accepted the reality that posting on FR does not necessarily make one among the brighter bulbs on the tree.
I'll save you the trouble; yes, I would include myself, at times.
If found to be negligent, the "officer" should himself be given a Taser blast of 37 seconds, plus one additional second.
All other things being equal, during performance of their duties, yes they are. Simply by virtue of the fact that they are constantly exposed to violent nutcases.
I have personally known 4 cops who were killed on duty.
I do not know any innocent civilians killed by a cop using questionable judgement. That tells me something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.