Cops Tase Barely Conscious Boy With Broken Back 19 Times For Non-Compliance

[CopThatSupportsRonPaul]

There have been people who have killed cops after being fatally injured.

If someone is telling me they are going to kill me, obviously they are not injured that badly and can afford to ride the lightning.

I don't know about you, but if I was injured and needed medical attention, and officers were arresting me, I would say that I needed medical attention, not that I was going to kill the officers.

But common sense is something people seem to lack these days...

 

[CopThatSupportsRonPaul]

That's very weird because I know and talk to a lot of cops around the Chicago area and pretty much most of them agree that the drugs being illegal is kind of pointless. Somebody else pointed out that even in prison, which as a "total police state", drugs make their way in. The whole issue would be better dealt with by treating the drug addiction as a medical problem, not a criminal one. The only time it should be criminal is when a crack head stole something or injured someone else.

I haven't worked in a jail before so I'm not sure about that.

But I'm not here to really discuss the drug war. I just think it works and that we are better off with it than without it. I think there are better solutions than it, but it's better than nothing.

But it's just foolish to say that I can't be a Ron Paul supporter because I disagree with him on only one issue...

 

[tmosley]

Someone mumbling in delerium after a serious traumatic injury is a bit different than someone looking you in the face and saying "I'm going to kill you". It should have been obvious that the kid was seriously injured, what with him having FALLEN OFF OF A BRIDGE and and all.

Honestly, the officers in question were either sociopathic, or they were retarded. Either way, they both need to lose their badges. Police are in a position of authority and trust, and must be held to a standard that reflects that.

Good people can become bad cops. Google "The Lucifer Effect" and see what I mean. Cops are generally good people once they have their badges off, but when they are on duty they tend to become arrogant and overly aggressive towards insignificant threats (whether physical or to their authority).

 

[Thor]

I haven't worked in a jail before so I'm not sure about that.

But I'm not here to really discuss the drug war. I just think it works and that we are better off with it than without it. I think there are better solutions than it, but it's better than nothing.

But it's just foolish to say that I can't be a Ron Paul supporter because I disagree with him on only one issue...

Not to change the thread title here, but why do you disagree on that point about drugs? Do you not feel that individuals have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others or put others in harms way.

If someone gets behind the wheel or in anyway jeopardizes someone else after any mind or control altering substance to a level that effects their judgment or reaction times, then they have infringed on others potential safety, but staying at home and doing something to themselves is harmless if they keep to themselves.

They need to take responsibility for their own health issues that arise (or private charities), and not the government.

While I agree many drugs have unfortunate health deterioration and addiction issues associated with it, marijuana is generally less harmful and addictive than tobacco and/or alcohol. Basically with that specific "drug" it comes down to control and tax. When you can grow a weed in your yard, dry it without any special processing, and smoke it to relax, the government can't tax it or control it... and therefore it is "illegal" because Uncle Sam want's a piece of every pie they can get their hands on.... Alcohol is harder to make, but feasible with home wine and beer brewing and small batch distilling; as it is harder to properly cure and process tobacco. Both are possible, but harder than just letting a weed grow wild and then drying it....

Some "hard" drugs have horrible long term consequences for the user, families and even unintended bystanders (just like alcohol) but marijuana being illegal is pure economics....

And being a cop, you are required to uphold the law and accept and enforce it, no matter if it is a good law or not..... but how far will you go to uphold the law if the laws keep changing to be more and more oppressive and depleting individual rights?

If a military draft is instituted under McCain (not likely he will win, but let's pretend), and as a cop you are required to round up any draft dodgers, what will you do? You said you are against the draft, but you took an oath?

How far do you follow your oath against personal beliefs? If Dubya makes himself a dictator (which he can do under the Military Commissions Act I believe), and starts passing more laws you are required to enforce, how many do you adopt as your own principles because the oath and job require it?

Anyway, it is good to see someone who is "from the government and here to help" sees the value in Ron Paul's message on many fronts. Dig a little deeper, read the Revolution if you have not. He is a great man wise beyond his years. Dare I say as wise as the founders of this country???

And I know lots of cops are terrified (maybe not "in the moment" but at least in the back of their mind( when dealing with suspects because they know others (friends) who have been shot and wounded or killed, but sometimes they do get a little hot under the collar and go too far.... out of fear, safety, protection; or sometimes, for some, just pent up aggression and the ability the badge affords them.... It is true, you never know who you are dealing with, it is a 2 sided issue that both sides have valid points and concerns.

 

[Maverick]

Someone mumbling in delerium after a serious traumatic injury is a bit different than someone looking you in the face and saying "I'm going to kill you". It should have been obvious that the kid was seriously injured, what with him having FALLEN OFF OF A BRIDGE and and all.

Honestly, the officers in question were either sociopathic, or they were retarded. Either way, they both need to lose their badges. Police are in a position of authority and trust, and must be held to a standard that reflects that.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with this, assuming that everything in the article is correct. However, I tend to take everything posted on Infowars with a grain of salt. Actually, make that the whole shaker.

 

[CopThatSupportsRonPaul]

Not to change the thread title here, but why do you disagree on that point about drugs? Do you not feel that individuals have the right to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others or put others in harms way.

I've seen first hand what drugs do to a person, and it's messed up. Drugs mess up lives, and most of the time people that take the drugs don't know what they are getting into.

I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of drugs, I want to see society progress in the forward direction, not backwards.

Since it's impossible to get rid of all drugs, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands.

While I agree many drugs have unfortunate health deterioration and addiction issues associated with it, marijuana is generally less harmful and addictive than tobacco and/or alcohol.

Marijuana is the only drug that I agree should be legalized. It should be legalized, but heavily controlled.

Other stuff like cocaine, pcp, lsd, heroin, etc should remain illegal and in fact have harsher penalties.

And being a cop, you are required to uphold the law and accept and enforce it, no matter if it is a good law or not..... but how far will you go to uphold the law if the laws keep changing to be more and more oppressive and depleting individual rights?

If a military draft is instituted under McCain (not likely he will win, but let's pretend), and as a cop you are required to round up any draft dodgers, what will you do? You said you are against the draft, but you took an oath?

It depends on how far it goes. Rounding up draft dodgers, I would still do, but I would probably slack off while doing it and purposely let some escape. SHH don't tell McCain that.

But if the government would have me start killing innocent civilians, gestapo style, then yes I would resign and probably move to another country and work as an officer there.

And I know lots of cops are terrified (maybe not "in the moment" but at least in the back of their mind( when dealing with suspects because they know others (friends) who have been shot and wounded or killed, but sometimes they do get a little hot under the collar and go too far.... out of fear, safety, protection; or sometimes, for some, just pent up aggression and the ability the badge affords them.... It is true, you never know who you are dealing with, it is a 2 sided issue that both sides have valid points and concerns.

Every day I go to work my life is in danger. 65% of the people I'm dealing with on a daily basis are flat out criminals that would have no qualms about killing me. My job is actually working with criminals.

People who are not police would never understand... your job is not working with criminals and you rarely encounter them...

But I will say this, my life is just as valuable as anyone else's and yes I am going home to my family at the end of the day.

If you pull a gun on me, I'm shooting you with intent to kill, no questions asked. Especially because you are the criminal, not me.


If you are acting like a criminal, we are going to treat you like a criminal.

It's not a hard concept to grasp, be a good person, and the police won't give you any trouble.

 

[revolutionary8]

It's not a hard concept to grasp, be a good person, and the police won't give you any trouble.

umm, I WISH this were true, but this has got to be some of the most blatant misinformation I have ever read. Go tell that to the babies who were pepper sprayed, and the people who were pepper pelleted, and shot with rubber bullets in this video- and all because the police SAID "someone" threw a bottle. FTR, that "someone" was never found, never charged...
Part 1- the cop's eye perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCpiE7WpVVk

Part 2- The Peace activist perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIP0uHnMRSg

CFRP,
have you ever heard of agent provocateurs?

 

[Join The Paul Side]

The people calling for the end of tasers is no different than the crowd of people who want to ban guns.

I don't think tasers should be banned from citizen usage, only usage from cops since they think they can go Rodney King on people with them.

If someone is telling me they are going to kill me, obviously they are not injured that badly and can afford to ride the lightning.

I don't know about you, but if I was injured and needed medical attention, and officers were arresting me, I would say that I needed medical attention, not that I was going to kill the officers.

But common sense is something people seem to lack these days...

First of all, you don't know if the kid even said he was going to kill the officer. The police chief is claiming the kid said that. Obviously he must have heard this from the cops that tortured the boy in a pathetic attempt to cover up their crime. Cops lie. Especially crooked ones. If you think that public opinion is going to favor two roid raging officers who tortured an obviously injured, unarmed and defenseless boy then do the public a favor and turn in your badge. We don't need cops like you on the street because you are fucking crazy, man.

 

[Thor]

Your right, most of us do not know what it is like to deal with criminals every day. I can respect that. But still, in some cases the person is clearly not a criminal. It is a tough issue for both sides (and I am referring to the every day normal non criminal as the other side)

I've seen first hand what drugs do to a person, and it's messed up. Drugs mess up lives, and most of the time people that take the drugs don't know what they are getting into.

I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of drugs, I want to see society progress in the forward direction, not backwards.

Since it's impossible to get rid of all drugs, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands.

I have seen it too with some distant family members. It is not pretty. But where do we draw the line with personal responsibility as long as it is a crime against yourself? Are you going to start arresting people who eat trans fatty foods when that becomes outlawed (You saw what Arnold passed in CA this week)? Or people who drink too much high fructose corn syrup laden drinks? Extreme examples, yes... but both are harmful to the people and their families and our financial system to care for them (just like tobacco and alcohol to excess are). Some drugs have shorter term cycles of harm than other things like heart disease... but both do.

The only point is, you need to let the individual be responsible for themselves (and their family) when it is something they do to themselves, whether they can go down hill in a week, or in a year or 5 years, or 40 years from doing something "harmful" that is only self inflicted... Can it be tragic, yes for sure... but when it does not infringe on the rights of others, do we really need to step in and be the big brother to them and beat them up for it (jail, etc)....

Is societal progress more important than individual rights even if those rights detract from the "common good"? Think back 250 years ago.... what did our founders think and what was the purpose of our freedom from a distant society? Is America about a common good? A universal health care, a government run social support and safety net? Unfortunately it is... at tax dollar expense... but it should not be based upon the principles of the founders.

 

[jbuttell]

I've seen first hand what drugs do to a person, and it's messed up. Drugs mess up lives, and most of the time people that take the drugs don't know what they are getting into.

I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of drugs, I want to see society progress in the forward direction, not backwards.

Since it's impossible to get rid of all drugs, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands.

As far as I can tell, you're implying that people who are against the drug war aren't aware of the many pitfalls of drug use. That they haven't experienced it first hand or seen the destruction it can cause loved ones. Your arguments are weak and remind me of Liberal's push for banning guns even though it's an individual right as listed in our Bill of Rights. You completely diregard the fact that liberty is being violated and the federal government's involement in the drug war is illegal under the constitution.

Your comment:
"I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of drugs, I want to see society progress in the forward direction, not backwards. Since it's impossible to get rid of all drugs, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands."

...imagine it with one word swapped:

"I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of guns, I want to see society progress in a forward direction, not backwards. Since it's impossible to get rid of all guns, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands."

You may be a Ron Paul supporter - and I'm greatful for that, but I hope you're open minded on this issue, because your position on this only illustrates to me that you haven't fully accepted the idea of individual liberty, but instead you subscribe to the idea that government must govern behavior, regardless of whether that individual behavior violates others or not.

.jeremy

 

[Join The Paul Side]

As far as I can tell, you're implying that people who are against the drug war aren't aware of the many pitfalls of drug use. That they haven't experienced it first hand or seen the destruction it can cause loved ones. Your arguments are weak and remind me of Liberal's push for banning guns even though it's an individual right as listed in our Bill of Rights. You completely diregard the fact that liberty is being violated and the federal government's involement in the drug war is illegal under the constitution.

Your comment:
"I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of drugs, I want to see society progress in the forward direction, not backwards. Since it's impossible to get rid of all drugs, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands."

...imagine it with one word swapped:

"I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of guns, I want to see society progress in a forward direction, not backwards. Since it's impossible to get rid of all guns, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands."

You may be a Ron Paul supporter - and I'm greatful for that, but I hope you're open minded on this issue, because your position on this only illustrates to me that you haven't fully accepted the idea of individual liberty, but instead you subscribe to the idea that government must govern behavior, regardless of whether that individual behavior violates others or not.

.jeremy

Very well said.

 

[purplechoe]

As far as I can tell, you're implying that people who are against the drug war aren't aware of the many pitfalls of drug use. That they haven't experienced it first hand or seen the destruction it can cause loved ones. Your arguments are weak and remind me of Liberal's push for banning guns even though it's an individual right as listed in our Bill of Rights. You completely diregard the fact that liberty is being violated and the federal government's involement in the drug war is illegal under the constitution.

Your comment:
"I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of drugs, I want to see society progress in the forward direction, not backwards. Since it's impossible to get rid of all drugs, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands."

...imagine it with one word swapped:

"I think it's better for society as a whole if we got rid of guns, I want to see society progress in a forward direction, not backwards. Since it's impossible to get rid of all guns, the next best thing is to prohibit them and do what we can to prevent them from falling into people's hands."

You may be a Ron Paul supporter - and I'm greatful for that, but I hope you're open minded on this issue, because your position on this only illustrates to me that you haven't fully accepted the idea of individual liberty, but instead you subscribe to the idea that government must govern behavior, regardless of whether that individual behavior violates others or not.

.jeremy

.jeremy... you get a big thumbs up from me for that statement.

It comes down to whether or not someone truly believes in individual liberty. You kind of have to accept the whole notion of what that entails. It means individuals have the right to own property, able to defend themselves and free do what they choose as long as their actions don't hurt or infringe upon the rights of others. I hope you can give it some further thought and please read The Revolution: A Manifesto to get a better idea of Ron Paul philosophy and what this whole movement is all about. It's not some hippie rEVOLution. It's a revolution about the ideals that this country was founded upon by men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc... Our president has more executive power today than the King George we tried to free ourselves from. This whole movement is about shrinking the size of Federal government and give power back to the states and individuals to make laws as they choose which are not expressed by the Constitution. What we are trying to do is get back to a constitutional form of government by which real freedom was able to be experienced by individuals in country where government governs least.

 

[Maverick]

umm, I WISH this were true, but this has got to be some of the most blatant misinformation I have ever read. Go tell that to the babies who were pepper sprayed, and the people who were pepper pelleted, and shot with rubber bullets in this video- and all because the police SAID "someone" threw a bottle. FTR, that "someone" was never found, never charged...
Part 1- the cop's eye perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCpiE7WpVVk

Part 2- The Peace activist perspective
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIP0uHnMRSg

CFRP,
have you ever heard of agent provocateurs?

You can cut out about 95% of those videos, which is all fear-mongering Hitler-Nazi-gestappo comparison bullshit. However, surprisingly, part of one video wasn't completely without merit.

Just skip to 2:20 of Part 2.

I did find it compelling that the officers were discussing how the were going to repel the crowd in a very orderly, calm, and rational manner. Normally, you would expect that of course, however, in this instance it doesn't seem to jibe with the "someone threw a bottle and all hell broke loose" scenario. I'd say that section of the video was enough to convince me that someone lied about the reason given for dispersing the crowd.

 

[revolutionary8]

You can cut out about 95% of those videos, which is all fear-mongering Hitler-Nazi-gestappo comparison bullshit. However, surprisingly, part of one video wasn't completely without merit.

Just skip to 2:20 of Part 2.

I did find it compelling that the officers were discussing how the were going to repel the crowd in a very orderly, calm, and rational manner. Normally, you would expect that of course, however, in this instance it doesn't seem to jibe with the "someone threw a bottle and all hell broke loose" scenario. I'd say that section of the video was enough to convince me that someone lied about the reason given for dispersing the crowd.

lol Mav, it IS fear mongering, because that is some scary motherfucking shit- all caught on camera. Just la la la out the commentary and watch the video- well except for this part of the commentary- skip to part 1 @ 2:33- and compare notes.

Here is what CopThatSupportsRonPaul said:

Videos can also distort reality. We don't know what happened before the video was being recorded, or before the action that happened on the video. Just because it's on video, you can't take it as gospel.

 

[Suzu]

I tend to take everything posted on Infowars with a grain of salt. Actually, make that the whole shaker.

This incident took place not far down the road from where I live. The story was on the evening news here. It happened. This area isn't exactly famous for its brainiacs.

 

[revolutionary8]

This incident took place not far down the road from where I live. The story was on the evening news here. It happened. This area isn't exactly famous for its brainiacs.

Hey thanks Suz, not sure what you mean by brainiac deprived, but regardless, isn't the whole mass one big obstruction of traffic? Isn't that the point?
You'd think the global warming alarmists would be all over this. Perhaps they need to be convinced that this is "their cause"?
whoops!
:o wrong thread.
so many dirty cops and innocent civilians, so little time.

 

[Nanerbeet]

I have seen it too with some distant family members. It is not pretty. But where do we draw the line with personal responsibility as long as it is a crime against yourself? Are you going to start arresting people who eat trans fatty foods when that becomes outlawed (You saw what Arnold passed in CA this week)? Or people who drink too much high fructose corn syrup laden drinks? Extreme examples, yes... but both are harmful to the people and their families and our financial system to care for them (just like tobacco and alcohol to excess are). Some drugs have shorter term cycles of harm than other things like heart disease... but both do.

Maybe thats not too extreme; I wanted to suppliment your example with another one: sub-prime borrowers who miss payments on their houses are causing far more damage to their families and society than regular drug users. Should would crack down on guys who miss their mortgage payments???

 

[Maverick]

This incident took place not far down the road from where I live. The story was on the evening news here. It happened. This area isn't exactly famous for its brainiacs.

Yes, well, when I said that I hadn't noticed that there was a video posted with it. The news report on the incident does lend more credence to the story, at least.

However, I will say this...I believe the number of times the boy was tasered is mainly conjecture at this point. If you notice from the news report, they mentioned that they were speaking to the boy's aunt when they said he was "tasered up to 19 times."

I believe the media may have gotten that number from the boy's aunt, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that she may have exaggerated. So it could be anywhere between 1 and 19 times. As for what ramifications that has on this incident, I'll leave for the rest of you to discuss, but just bear that in mind.

 

[revolutionary8]

Yes, well, when I said that I hadn't noticed that there was a video posted with it. The news report on the incident does lend more credence to the story, at least.

However, I will say this...I believe the number of times the boy was tasered is mainly conjecture at this point. If you notice from the news report, they mentioned that they were speaking to the boy's aunt when they said he was "tasered up to 19 times."

I believe the media may have gotten that number from the boy's aunt, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that she may have exaggerated. So it could be anywhere between 1 and 19 times. As for what ramifications that has on this incident, I'll leave for the rest of you to discuss, but just bear that in mind.

Wouldn't tazers leave a mark? Wouldn't the aunt of this boy be able to see the marks for herself? Wouldn't there also be photos to back this up?

I think the "10 seconds" avenue might be the better bet. Regardless, "up to" 19 times??

 

[Nanerbeet]

It's not a hard concept to grasp, be a good person, and the police won't give you any trouble.

Don't agitate the bully on the playground or he'll beat you up! Thats good advice. I'll just curl up into a little ball and take it the next time the cop mugs me at (radar) gun point because I'd rather not get beat up.