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

[revolutionary8]

I don't like yongrel very much.

yah right, and you hate hi jacking threads ya jacko.

 

[revolutionary8]

In Memoriam

Strong Son of God, immortal Love,
Whom we, that have not seen thy face,
By faith, and faith alone, embrace,
Believing where we cannot prove;

Thine are these orbs of light and shade;
Thou madest Life in man and brute;
Thou madest Death; and lo, thy foot
Is on the skull which thou hast made.

Thou wilt not leave us in the dust:
Thou madest man, he knows not why,
He thinks he was not made to die;
And thou hast made him: thou art just.

We have but faith: we cannot know;
For knowledge is of things we see;
And yet we trust it comes from thee,
A beam in darkness: let it grow.

Let knowledge grow from more to more,
But more of reverence in us dwell;
That mind and soul, according well,
May make one music as before,

But vaster. We are fools and slight;
We mock thee when we do not fear:
But help thy foolish ones to bear;
Help thy vain worlds to bear thy light.

Forgive what seem'd my sin in me;
What seem'd my worth since I began;
For merit lives from man to man,
And not from man, O Lord, to thee.

Forgive my grief for one removed,
Thy creature, whom I found so fair.
I trust he lives in thee, and there
I find him worthier to be loved.

Forgive these wild and wandering cries,
Confusions of a wasted youth;
Forgive them where they fail in truth,
And in thy wisdom make me wise.

Thou seemest human and divine,
The highest, holiest manhood, thou.
Our wills are ours, we know not how;
Our wills are ours, to make them thine.

Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be:
They are but broken lights of thee,
And thou, O Lord, art more than they. (...)

-Alfred lord Tennyson

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

yah right, and you hate hi jacking threads ya jacko.

You started it I just said that I agree with the poster I was quoting. There's two sides to every story.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No kidding. Now, suppose you ask yourself how much resistance a human body has when a barb pierces the skin??


FF

very very little. Blood being iron based and all...

 

[fr33domfightr]

Before Tasers, we used handguns, which ARE supposed to be lethal. Take your pick, something that has a 0.0001% chance to kill you or something that has a 99% chance to kill you.

Why can't you people grasp the concept that Tasers are a great thing and save more lives than they harm?

You want a personal experience I had?

About 2 years ago, a man was charging at me with a hunting knife telling me he was going to kill me. If I didn't have my taser, I would have unholstered my gun, shot him in the chest, and killed him.

But because of the Taser I had, I unholsted my taser, deployed it on the man, and while he was incapaciated, subdued him.


The Taser SAVED his life.

Of course the media is not going to report on Tasers saving people's lives, because it happens hundreds of times per day. Why report on something that is frequent and normal? It would be like the News reporting that the sky is blue and that the grass is green.

No, they only report on Tasers killing people, because it doesn't happen often. If the sky was purple and the grass was red, they news would report on it.

Using a Taser responsibly will make it a useful tool. Using it irresponsibly can result in death! A Taser is SUPPOSED TO BE NON LETHAL, yet it has been proven now TO BE LETHAL FROM IT'S USE. That is reason enough to reevaluate its lethality given its current usage.


FF

 

[CopThatSupportsRonPaul]

Using a Taser responsibly will make it a useful tool. Using it irresponsibly can result in death! A Taser is SUPPOSED TO BE NON LETHAL, yet it has been proven now TO BE LETHAL FROM IT'S USE. That is reason enough to reevaluate its lethality given its current usage.

Like I said before, you can die from drinking coffee, just because it happens a few times doesn't mean it happens often and that we should stop drinking coffee.


So if we reevalute the lethality of the taser, and announce that it has a chance of being lethal, will you be happy? And then what? The taser is still going to be used, since it saves far more lives than it kills.

 

[CopThatSupportsRonPaul]

Not to mention I have seen video of a cop using the taser as a compliance weapon.

Well duh? That's what we use it for, for compliance.

Someone resisting arrest, or pointing a gun at you, is not exactly complying...

 

[revolutionary8]

Kicks

CopThatSupportsRonPaul, you seem to be laboring under the delusion that this kid was some hardened criminal or fugitive, when even the cops were given no such indication. All they knew was that someone was walking on the overpass, and someone called them to ask them to check it out. In other words, the original caller most likely called precisely because they were concerned with this kid's safety.

While walking on the overpass is dangerous, it's hardly a capital crime, and it's hardly probable cause for a no-holds-barred arrest. While cops do need to always be on their guard for unexpected threats, there was no more reason to suspect that this kid was a violent criminal than there was to suspect any other random teenager in America.

Considering the kid was clearly injured after a 30-foot drop, the cops entering the scene had no legitimate reason to arrest him in the first place. Rather, their job was to call a paramedic...but instead, they decided to apprehend him - when up to this point, his only known crime was falling off an overpass and getting badly hurt.

Now, according to the cops, the kid was mumbling things like, "kill cops" while he was squirming in agony on the ground (personally, I'd be thinking the same thing if I just fell off an overpass and broke my back and the cops had the audacity to try and arrest me for it). In my mind, there are only four remotely plausible reasons for this:

1. He was already a disturbed individual who mumbles things to himself.
2. Falling and breaking his back put the kid into a delirious state of shock, so he started mumbling his inner thoughts - and he might have legitimately been very upset with these particular cops, for various reasons
3. The cops lied about the order of events, and they actually did something first to the kid that would provoke hatred and death threats...like, for instance, if they apprehended him on top of the bridge, he mouthed off, they tazed him for it, and he fell off and broke his back.
4. The cops lied about him saying anything of the sort at all.

In any case, death threats kind of lose their menace when they're vaguely mumbled by a sixteen-year-old kid who's squirming around on the ground after a 30-foot drop onto pavement. Even when a capable person makes a credible death threat to another person, they're supposed to be apprehended in as routine and nonviolent a manner as possible. When an apparently unarmed suspect is threatening to kill someone, responsible cops will back off and assess the situation for a moment before rushing in and getting gun-happy or tazer-happy. By themselves, such threats are never an excuse for brutal force, even if the suspect is completely uninjured. Until a weapon enters the picture or the suspect is physically beating the shit out of the cops, tazers should never be used. They're a weapon of second-last resort when apprehending the most difficult and violent suspects, not a compliance weapon. (In other words, there's absolutely nothing wrong with cops or anyone else having tazers. There is something wrong with cops overusing them without justification and/or blatantly assaulting people with them.)

Now, remember that until the kid allegedly made threats, there was no reason to arrest him that was not entirely overshadowed by his injuries. Upon hearing such threats, here's what a sensible and responsible cop would have thought:
"Well...I should keep an eye on him to make sure he doesn't pull a weapon out of his ass, but there's no reason I even need to be in striking range of him in the first place. I don't particularly need to arrest him for anything while he's in this state, though I might apprehend him over his threat once he's treated. He needs to learn that he can't just throw around threats like that. Anyway, how about I call a paramedic and talk with this kid until he calms down?"

Instead, the cops on the scene thought,
"Oh, shit! He's partially conscious and mumbling threats! Clear and present danger! We've gotta taze this little bastard until he's half dead, because there's no other safe way to arrest him for falling off the overpass!" Once you get to the point where this line of thinking is acceptable to you, you need to realize that you've either become jaded beyond rationality or that the power has gotten to your head. In either case, it's time to turn in your badge and gun, for the good of the community you serve.

Cops need to remember that they are not above the law (except when the law is unjust of course), and they do not have the right to go around arresting whoever they want for any reason by any means necessary. Furthermore, the rest of us need to make them remember. There's a reason cops have a widespread reputation for being "bullies on the playground" who have exceeded their mandate to serve and protect. Their sense of authority often allows them to get away with things that nobody else can, mainly because the judicial system usually takes their word at face value...and they know it, resulting in the "Who do you think they're going to believe, me or you?" situations. The law itself is part of the problem of course, since "resisting arrest" is a crime in and of itself - this makes it not only extremely dangerous but also unfairly illegal to fight back against aggression by armed thugs with a badge, and it instantly gives false legitimacy to any violence cops engage in (resisting arrest must obviously add aggravation to any criminal charges, and it's a difficult balancing act, but I certainly do not like the idea that we are not allowed to defend ourselves from assault by a cop). The more we allow this to happen and the more unaccountable cops become, the more violent people the job will attract in the first place.

To be worthy of the badge, police need to ask themselves if the suspect's alleged offense really warrants a balls-to-the-walls violent arrest that could result in someone getting seriously injured or killed. They need to consider how far it's worth escalating a nonviolent situation in order to arrest their suspect. Even more importantly, they need to realize that they are in fact never justified in escalating the situation in the first place: Rather, they must use force only when provoked by violent action or the presence of a weapon (not by "disrespect" or other empty words)...and the force they use must be the least amount of force necessary to reasonably ensure their own safety and that of others (I say reasonably because nothing in life is 100% guaranteed).

This case in particular was an instance of cops escalating the process of arrest WAY beyond what their suspect's alleged offense warranted, and on top of that, it was done to a sixteen year old kid with a broken back...absolutely ridiculous. They were called in presumably to check on this kid's safety, and instead they almost killed him trying to arrest him. Common sense is indeed something people seem to lack these days.

(It also shouldn't surprise anyone here, but according to wikipedia and its numerous listed references, "[Psychopaths] are overrepresented in prison systems, politics, law enforcement agencies, law firms, and in the media." Go figure - I wonder what would attract such people to these positions of power or land them in prison? )

ass.

 

[revolutionary8]

Well duh? That's what we use it for, for compliance.

Someone resisting arrest, or pointing a gun at you, is not exactly complying...

I forgot to ask, wher'd they put the boy's gun in this particular case we are talking about- you know the one where the 16 yo, with a broken back, after resisting gravity, was tazzzzed to hell and back "in upwards? of 19 times"?

 

[Mini-Me]

Well duh? That's what we use it for, for compliance.

Someone resisting arrest, or pointing a gun at you, is not exactly complying...

Someone resisting arrest by running or squirming can be dealt with using handcuffs and batons, unless he's actually beating up on cops like Batman - in which case, taser use is warranted (as well as better combat training ). When someone's pulling a gun on you, tazer use and gun use are both warranted.

When GunnyFreedom said that tazers should not be used as a "compliance weapon," he meant that cops should not go tazer-happy whenever someone merely ignores their commands - like they did on the woman in the instance he was specifically referencing.

By the way, I had a much longer post near the bottom of page 7, but my argument there has gone unaddressed...(thanks revolutionary8 )

 

[revolutionary8]

Before Tasers, we used handguns, which ARE supposed to be lethal. Take your pick, something that has a 0.0001% chance to kill you or something that has a 99% chance to kill you.

Why can't you people grasp the concept that Tasers are a great thing and save more lives than they harm?

You want a personal experience I had?

About 2 years ago, a man was charging at me with a hunting knife telling me he was going to kill me. If I didn't have my taser, I would have unholstered my gun, shot him in the chest, and killed him.

But because of the Taser I had, I unholsted my taser, deployed it on the man, and while he was incapaciated, subdued him.


The Taser SAVED his life.

who the hell are you talking about? The 16 yo boy who was unarmed? Yes? In that case, If ya didn't have that handy tazzzzzer, you'd a shot him, and then ya *might* have landed your ass in jail for the rest of your life, had YA got what ya deserved.

 

[fr33domfightr]

Like I said before, you can die from drinking coffee, just because it happens a few times doesn't mean it happens often and that we should stop drinking coffee.


So if we reevalute the lethality of the taser, and announce that it has a chance of being lethal, will you be happy? And then what? The taser is still going to be used, since it saves far more lives than it kills.

Yes, I would like to see officers trained to know it can be lethal if used improperly. It should be used, but not abused. It would appear that in the cases of death, it was being applied many many times, not a one-shot application, while subduing a person.


FF

 

[revolutionary8]

Someone resisting arrest by running or squirming can be dealt with using handcuffs and batons, unless he's actually beating up on cops like Batman - in which case, taser use is warranted. When someone's pulling a gun on you, tazer use and gun use are both warranted.

When GunnyFreedom said that tazers should not be used as a "compliance weapon," he meant that cops should not go tazer-happy whenever someone merely ignores their commands - like they did on the woman in the instance he was referencing.

By the way, I had a much longer post near the bottom of page 7, but my argument there has gone unaddressed...(thanks revolutionary8 )

My pleasure MM.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well duh? That's what we use it for, for compliance.

Someone resisting arrest, or pointing a gun at you, is not exactly complying...

And you think "obey me or suffer" is something that should be done to Americans?

And you haven't addressed the whole point of the posts -- the idea that a taser can only discharge once or at most twice before exhaustion is unmitigated crap.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Someone resisting arrest by running or squirming can be dealt with using handcuffs and batons, unless he's actually beating up on cops like Batman - in which case, taser use is warranted (as well as better combat training ). When someone's pulling a gun on you, tazer use and gun use are both warranted.

When GunnyFreedom said that tazers should not be used as a "compliance weapon," he meant that cops should not go tazer-happy whenever someone merely ignores their commands - like they did on the woman in the instance he was specifically referencing.

By the way, I had a much longer post near the bottom of page 7, but my argument there has gone unaddressed...(thanks revolutionary8 )

Yeah, no kidding! How long before we see something like, "Suck my d*^k! No! ZAP! Suck my d*^k! No! ZAP! Suck my d*^k! No! ZAP! Suck my d*^k! No! ZAP!"

 

[RonPaulCentral]

Tazed 19 times? First of all, that's flat out impossible. Tasers are only good for 2 shocks at most. Were these officers carrying 9 tasers on their belt or something? ROFL. I work for a PD with a huge budget, and they can't even give us all tasers, so I doubt these two officers in the OZARK PD were carrying 9 tasers with them. If the article can't even get that right, I highly doubt the accuracy of the rest of the story.


Second, how were the officers supposed to know the "boy" had a broken back? If you are trying to take someone into custody, and they are writhing around resisting you, while at the same time saying they are going to kill you, what exactly are you supposed to do, give them milk and cookies?

The boy deserves a darwin award and should be fortunate he was only tazed and not shot.

This is total nonsense. Someone on the ground (unarmed) is hardly a threat. I can tell you this.... if this happened to me that cop had better be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life because there would have been serious payback. This event is completely unacceptable and the officer should have been fired.

I think it is time for citizens to start wearing taser proof clothing (it exists).

In my opinion this officer is a weak coward of a human.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Tazed 19 times? First of all, that's flat out impossible. Tasers are only good for 2 shocks at most. Were these officers carrying 9 tasers on their belt or something? ROFL. I work for a PD with a huge budget, and they can't even give us all tasers, so I doubt these two officers in the OZARK PD were carrying 9 tasers with them. If the article can't even get that right, I highly doubt the accuracy of the rest of the story.


Second, how were the officers supposed to know the "boy" had a broken back? If you are trying to take someone into custody, and they are writhing around resisting you, while at the same time saying they are going to kill you, what exactly are you supposed to do, give them milk and cookies?

The boy deserves a darwin award and should be fortunate he was only tazed and not shot.

Someone ban this idiot. He is trying to incite hatred for his own amusement.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Someone ban this idiot. He is trying to insight hatred for his own amusement.

umm. He's just expressing his own opinion. sheesh.

Sometimes a taser shot or two to the balls is just the thing to heighten sexual tension in the bedroom. So to speak.

 

[Arklatex]

I'm appalled at CopThatSupportsRonPaul. A kid, with broken spine and a foot, and your condoning him being tased??? A kid?? Do you understand that... a kid!


What is wrong with the world...

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Well yes, you are suggesting that police shouldn't be able to do anything to criminals who have a back injury and are threatening to kill police... so why wouldn't more criminals lie and say they have a back injury?

You think criminals are going to tell the truth, put their hands out and say "sorry officers, cuff me."

LOL. You guys watch too much TV.

Yes, because everyone is a criminal at the cops own discretion even though the kid didn't commit any real crime. Who did the kid harm? Please do inform us on that. Who is the victim?