It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Last Words to Sheriffs, "Don't Kill Me, Man, Don't Kill Me"

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   


Wyrd, the idea is to not get into a position where you're ON the chopping block. You ever get to the point where a cop has a tazer drawn on you, you do what he says. Common sense- don't break the law, do what the officer says.


Submit. Submit! Submit!.

Okay, I see it like this. I conduct myself appropriately in our semi-civilized society. I don't attack people, I don't rob people, I don't make an ass out of myself in public. I don't injure my fellow citizens, and I don't make outrageous demands on the resources of the state.

So if a cop draws his tazer on me, it was for the wrong reasons, and I will do everything in my power to defend myself. If I've done something wrong, and I know it, I will likely go willingly. However, if I know I've done nothing wrong, I will not submit myself to the 'mercy' of one who has proven themselves degenerate. It wouldn't be in keeping with my policy of surviving and thriving.

When I have a weapon drawn on me, by a cop or by anyone else, I will use every last ounce of agility, skill, and strength, to take that weapon away from the attacker, and neutralize the threat. I'm well within my rights to do so, as a citizen, as a man, and as an animal. We all do what me must in order to survive.




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   


When I have a weapon drawn on me, by a cop or by anyone else, I will use every last ounce of agility, skill, and strength, to take that weapon away from the attacker, and neutralize the threat. I'm well within my rights to do so, as a citizen, as a man, and as an animal. We all do what me must in order to survive.


I agree to a point, as people when faced with a life threatning situation all goes out the window...do what you have to do to survive and eliminate the threat. Thats holds true anything and anybody.

But on the other hand, the cop may have bad info or be misinformed..heck might think you have a gun.....don;t take chances, he is far more prepared to kill than you are. If someone is more than 6 feet from you pointing a gun your chances of disarming him/her drastically goes to poop. To survive you may have to submit and sort it out later with the authorties........you will do better and cause more damage in a legal battle than in an armed battle if he's armed and your'e not.
(that's only if you are not at fault).

Now if you know that some thug has you in sights and he is gonna try to kill you then by all means....do whatever.


[edit on 4/5/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:17 PM
link   


But on the other hand, the cop may have bad info. If someone is more than 6 feet from you pointing a gun your chances of disarming him/her drastically goes to poop. To survive you may have to submit and sort it out later with the authorties........you will do better and cause more damage in a legal battle than in an armed battle if he's armed and your'e not.


True, the cop may be accidentally (or intentionally) setting you up to fall for something you didn't do. This fear is especially pronounced in the black community, because they see the same thing over and over again. I think this is where instincts come into play. If I'm getting a really bad feeling from something, I don't second guess my instincts. They've kept me alive this long.

And true, but the distance varies from person to person. I have almost a metre's worth of reach, and I was trained in the art of fencing, so I'm comfortable with quick 2 step advances and lunges. Generally though, it depends on the posture of the attacker. If they are in the process of drawing their weapon, you have three seconds at the inside, and occasionally much, much more at the outside. If they have already drawn a bead...well, you might have to resort to diplomacy.


And to your third point, I agree wholeheartedly. But again, it all depends on the intent of the one who is subduing you. In most cases, this is a good option. However, given all the evidence we've seen lately about cops getting off after they've committed a crime, I'm not so sure. I wish this wasn't even an issue, and we could rely on our LEOs to protect us. As it is, most people are more afraid of police than they are of criminals. (At least in my neighborhood)



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
WyrdeOne......History is made by the winners.

If you get shot cause that 6 feet was too much or that 12 feet or
whatever,....then your guilty...cause he will tell it his way.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I concur.


The moral of this story is: Win. Don't be that guy, win. Don't lose, win.




This guy apparently knocked an officer down while being arrested, but failed to get away. So, he's a loser, he didn't win. He ended up strapped to a chair for chrissakes. He would have been much better off going peacefully, given that a.) he lacked the ability to take a stand effectively b.) his crime wasn't all that serious. He would have been smarter to just go along with the officers. And, now he's dead. I guess that's evolution in action, huh? If he had been smarter, faster, stronger, he might be a free man today, alive and free.

Still, no reason to tazer the guy while he's strapped to a chair. I know cops go extra heavy on those who attack them, and especially those who shoot at them, and super, extra, no holds barred heavy on those guys who are cop killers. This is understandable, but it's not right, and it's not justice.

Before a trial, the citizen is innocent. Innocent men don't deserve to be brutalized.

The cops might think they know who's guilty, and who's innocent, but that's not their job. They're not judge, jury, executioner. They're cops. They get paid to SERVE & PROTECT, nothing more.

No, this is just bad decision making skills all around, cops and citizens both need to review their critical thinking skills.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The thing I can't stress enough is that civilians do not know dick about LEOs, the way they operate, and the facts of life. Cops have better things to do than sit there and hold you down for an hour. They have better things to do than dick around with an argumentative driver who doesn't think getting a speeding ticket is right.

Fact of the matter is that the populace is hostile to law enforcement. They don't think that what they're doing is wrong, and as displayed by wyrd, a fair amount of them have ABSOLUTELY no problems hurting or even killing officers over trivial garbarge. You think you have the right to speed, do drugs, punch out an asshole, do what you want. But you don't.

www.nleomf.com...

On average, more than 57,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year, resulting in some 17,000 injuries.

That's reported statistics, much less bloody noses and the like.

And then you whine when the people you employ to keep law and order get a little zealous with force? Jesus Christ, you're putting holes in them fast enough!

DE



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   


Fact of the matter is that the populace is hostile to law enforcement. They don't think that what they're doing is wrong, and as displayed by wyrd, a fair amount of them have ABSOLUTELY no problems hurting or even killing officers over trivial garbarge. You think you have the right to speed, do drugs, punch out an asshole, do what you want. But you don't.


The populace is hostile to law enforcement for one main reason, they know their rights, but they can't comprehend their responsibilities. These people don't consider the rights of others, they're self absorbed and perpetuallly without blame in their own eyes. These people are a detriment to society, and a cop's worst nightmare. They cause lots, and lots of problems.

Trivial garbage is just that, not worth dying for or killing for, at least not for a sensible, rational person. You must have misconstrued my earlier statements, to think I don't know that.

As as I said before, I think most sensible, responsible people treat the police with a great deal of respect. I know I do. If you want to consider me an abberation, that's your right, but let me clear something up. I've had great relationships with law enforcement in the past, both personal and professional.

I was talking about an extraordinary situation in which a police officer has resorted to threats of violence for no reason, those occasions when an officer of the law perceives himself above the law of common decency and mutual respect. Cops don't have any sort of intrinsic right to throw their weight around, they are beholden to the same laws we are. They aren't given a liscense to abuse, intimidate, or threaten their fellow citizens. Cops aren't above the law. Don't mistake my posture for one of agression. I simply won't give ground to a bully with a badge.

In order to be a good citizen, you have to show respect to your fellow men. But, you also have to demand it in return. Simply giving respect to all those you meet without demanding it makes you a slave. Demanding respect from all without reciprocating, ( a condition particularly common in positions of power like law enforcement, military, teaching, politics) that makes you a tyrant.

I choose not to be a tyrant, but neither will I act like a slave. I don't see how any man could choose otherwise and sleep soundly at night.

So please, don't misunderstand. I'm not a cop-hater, nor do I readily countenance cop-haters. The point of my earlier statements was to say that if a cop comes after you without provocation, with the intent to harm you, you should defend yourself as you would against any other man. Cops aren't our gods, they're our fellow citizens who get paid to keep us all safe.

That being said, if more people showed cops some respect right off the bat, there would be fewer bad cops.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I understand your bias here Deus, but I ask you to think about this from an objective perspective.


MY bias? What about your bias, mate? Picking up a story off an anarchistic site doesn't exactly make for objective.


Sorry man, but I think your prospective goal of working in law enforcement is blinding you to the realities that citizens face. I would hardly call the Atlanta Journal Constitution an anarchisitic site. Perhaps if you lived in America, you would know a little more about this respected newspaper.

You've said a lot on this thread about the harsh realities cops face, but little about what cops are supposed to do. The succient description of a cop's job is to serve and protect. But, as it stands in this case alone, the details of the story do not portray such. This was a confused and sick individual and the cops were obviously not trained to deal with a mentally unstable man. Instead, the decided to taser him until he was unconscious and died 2 days later. Sorry, but no heart or drug problems in this story.

Face it Deus, no one is perfect, and the job of a police officer holds them to a higher level of responsibility. These cops were not justified in my opinion for tasering this man 5 times in a minute while he was in restraints. They should be held accountable for their actions and serve the appropriate punishment. Police officers enforce the law, they are not above them because some criminals may make their jobs hard.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Hundreds of people have died from tasers Jamuhn?....
Do you actually have any evidence to back up your claim?....


[edit on 5-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Muadibb
It's true that they've killed, at least a hundred according to Amnesty International. They're classified as LTL, not non-lethal, except of course when they're being sold to prospective clients like cities, then they're 100% non-lethal bunny love wrapped in an attractive plastic package.


One RI legislator tried to push through a bill banning tazers owned by private citizens because she wasn't comfortable with the fact that they had a casualty rate.

Read on...

103 deaths 2001-2005 - 13 so far this year compared to 6 by the same time last year. It's not just a problem, it's a growing problem.
www.taxidermy.net...

Link

web.amnesty.org...

Here's some more tazer abuse for ya, BTW. A 13 yr. old girl handcuffed, and THEN tazered repeatedly in the back seat.
I guess this is justice as some would define it.
www.able2know.com...

And more..a link further down the page should take windows users to a video wherein cops defend their actions in using a tazer to bring down a couple of kids, one threatening to injure himself and another for skipping school.
journals.aol.com...

And then there's the one about the cop who used a tazer to 'coerce' a suspect to produce a urine sample...


Look, it's a problem when people are dying and nobody wants to own up to it. All the tazer salesmen claim that not a single death has been attributed to the product they pimp. This is true, in the sense that the police departments responsible for the deaths will blame the man on the moon before they accept responsibility. It was heart failure! It was drugs! It was Satan! Nevermind the fact that electric shock is listed on the death certificates...



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Jam- I couldn't view the AJC site, I have to feed off the free one, which commemerated things like IRA members dying of hunger strikes like they were martyrs. The fact that the story was picked up by a pro-anarchist site doesn't exactly lend it weight. As for the actions taken, I outlined that in my first post. The man was clearly struggling and trying to escape, rendering him a threat to himself and others. Despite several deputies and the chair holding him, he continued to resist. What were the deputies supposed to do? Not get back out there and do their jobs, try to wait this guy out? Beat him into submission? Use The Spray in a small, packed space? What were to happen if a 10-33 incident were to occur at that moment? It could mean the deaths of fellow officers and civilians because thsoe deputies weren't out there.

Wyrd- Look at the case of 'Welcome home, Marine.' Officers are all about safety, so if they tell you to do something, odds are its a good idea to do it. I have never even heard of a cop comign out fo a car with his gun drawn, except in circumstances where it's warranted. If the officer tells you to put your hands up, do it. Don't ask why, because that's jsut stupid. Don't ask what you've done, because you know he's jsut tryign to make sure you don't go for a gun because he's giving you a ticket. Don't get started with me on questioning police procedure, please. I'm tired. what it boils down to is if a cop asks you for something, it's either to make sure he goes home at the end of the day, or to make sure you do. Sometimes, taking charge of a situation falls something short of please and thank you. Me? I've got very little problem with a more...aggresive police force. More and better equipment, training, and less BS that keeps them from nabbing a suspect.As it is, we have enough recidivists going back on the street because scumbag lawyers skip them out on technicalities.

Yes, this is a tradgedy. Yes, this is horrible. But, faced with the facts, there really isn't much to say. If you can still be resisting restraint after two or three hits from the tazer, that's inhuman. I gotta figure that he must of been resisting something kind of fierce to get that kind of response.

DE



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Here's some more tazer abuse for ya, BTW. A 13 yr. old girl handcuffed, and THEN tazered repeatedly in the back seat.
I guess this is justice as some would define it.
www.able2know.com...

It could be justified. If she was kicking up a fuss, kicking at the glass and seats and generally impairing the officer's ability to drive, I would have done the same thing after repeated warnings. If you read the article, she was doing exactly that. she was endangering both herself and the other officers.

And more..a link further down the page should take windows users to a video wherein cops defend their actions in using a tazer to bring down a couple of kids, one threatening to injure himself and another for skipping school.
journals.aol.com...

The first case....beautiful. That is the EXACT kind of situation tasers are meant for. Suspect threatning to harm himself or others with something sharp. When you taze someone, they automatically do the following- fall over, let go of anything they have, and expell their bladders, all regardless of any drugs ingested. Of course, the range leaves something to be desired...but hey, it's not perfect. Still, another justifiable case. The girl skipping school...well, put it liek this: how much damage would a 200 lb officer cause to a resisting 13 year old by tackling or otherwise physically restraining them?

And then there's the one about the cop who used a tazer to 'coerce' a suspect to produce a urine sample...


That is just a hilarious urban myth. Some of these sites do not cut mustard. No logic, no sources, no common sense. Cops can't jsut piss away time- there's not enough of them to go around as is, and they don't need every bussinessman, clerk, and desk jockey in the country playing armchair five-oh.

DE




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   


If you can still be resisting restraint after two or three hits from the tazer, that's inhuman. I gotta figure that he must of been resisting something kind of fierce to get that kind of response.


This is an interesting study in bias, this discussion we're having. See, the quote above makes it clear that you choose to assume the police had a good reason for using a tazer many times on the suspect. Others choose to assume that they were using the device to torture, or punish him for resisting in the first place. I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't assault a prone man, regardless, and this incident was probably a couple of pissed off guys taking out their agression on an easy target, feeling totally justified because he had disobeyed them. It's possible he was having a seizure, which they mistook (?) for fidgeting.

And on the point you made about what if they had to leave, the Tazer isn't going to keep him subdued for long, a few minutes at most. So it's not an acceptable substitute for restraints, which he was already in! I can't see a logical defense of this scenario, at least not without more facts to support the officers' claims that he was violent and dangerous despite being strapped down. I've seen people struggle against the straps in a mental ward, and in my opinion, they weren't going anywhere. That opinion was apparently shared by the doctors too, because they weren't hovering over the beds of the patients shocking them repeatedly.

Now, the point I'm trying to make is this, the cops could be innocent, the cops could be guilty, what we need to determine that is a functioning justice system. The justice system has given passes to cop after cop after cop, and there is a trail of dead bodies that nobody in the various departments seems to feel bad about. Citizens keep dying, cops keep killing, and the problem is growing worse.

It's a rush, having power of another. I know. That power is a corrupting influence, it will hook and tease and drag even the strongest men into a life of tyranny if it's tasted too frequently. Police are the arm of the law, and as such they are easily misled by their own lust for power (completely human, totally natural, mostly unavoidable) into thinking they are the law.

There is no justification for killing another man, except in self defense, or the defense of another life. The key point is that Tazers can kill. They should not be used in place of handcuffs, or in place of a foot pursuit, or in place of diplomacy. They're being misused. Until they stop being misused, people are going to keep dying.

Tazers were designed primarily to help officers who were being attacked or resisted with force. For example, a man coming at you with the intent to harm you, shock him. A man with a brick, shock him. A man with a knife, shock him. If you can use a less than lethal device in place of a handgun, it's great, because the suspect has a much greater chance of living long enough to appear at trial than if the cop had to use his/her sidearm. That was the intended purpose.

So remember kids, Tazers aren't teaching aids!


DE, I'm not trying to be condescending, I just liked the way that sounded.


And that incident with the cop who got the wrong adress, the story that you mentioned, that could have been solved with a few seconds worth of diplomacy, and a little restraint on the part of the officer. I maintain that he could have handled himself much more professionally.

Anyway, I have another suggestion, in addition to my earlier one about mixing police work and community service. What if police did tours, like soldiers. This would prevent burnout, reduce the likelyhood of cultivating a power trip on the job, and limit the effects of bad cops. Cops who get rave reviews from their citizenry could be asked to stay on another tour, and if they keep getting praise, and continue to act professionally, they will maintain their position and rise in the ranks. This would all but solve the main problems plaguing the police force. No more out of shape, politically connected captains. No more sneering, abusive beat cops (at least not for long). Whadya think?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne Others choose to assume that they were using the device to torture, or punish him for resisting in the first place. I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't assault a prone man, regardless, and this incident was probably a couple of pissed off guys taking out their agression on an easy target, feeling totally justified because he had disobeyed them. It's possible he was having a seizure, which they mistook (?) for fidgeting.


Bias in a can. Police using force? Automatically a bad thing. In teh aritcle, it expressly states that he was struggling and attemptign to escape the restraints. As for a tazer not subduing someone...well, it sure puts teh fight out of everyone I've seen it used against in one, two hits tops.

You seem to have this vast idea that every day, a cop goes out and kills someone. Yeah, of course people will die in the course of being dealt with by cops, either because of some uncontrollable circumstance ( a baton blow aimed for the collarbone hitting the head, for example) or because, simply, they chose to resist arrest in such a manner that warranted deadly force. What's the expression? ' You mess with the bull, you get the horns.Now, you're all up in defending yourself....how come this doesn't apply to officers? Someone pulls a gun or a knife or what have you on me, I'm not going to feel bad about putting them down. Are you?

As for Tazers being the epitome of evil, why don't you look at all the fun toys that police had to use way back when, before The Spray was issued- weighted gloves, saps...they'd mess you up GOOD. To me, the Taser is a vast improvement over giving every officer a blackjack. Hell, way back when, when teh spray came out...it was considered the devil since it killed people, too. Yeah...you get an asthmatic in the face with that stuff, or it gets sprayed in an enclosed area, and you can suffocate.

As for Welcome Home, Marine...well, you know my feelings. Diplomacy doesn't always work, and in that case it didn't.

Your idea would be good if there was a surplus of officers, but there isn't. In fact, while there are more officers than ever, there still aren't enough to go around. Toronto is short hundreds of officers...some are even stuck going it solo, which isn't kosher as far as I'm concerned. Despite increases in funding, there is simpyl a personnel shortage amongst officers, which mean that quality control is slipping.

DE



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
www.amnestyusa.org...



Amnesty's latest report, released in November, documented police officers using TASERs against an intoxicated man strapped to a hospital gurney; a 50-year-old man who refused to give police his date of birth at a picnic; and a woman six months pregnant, shocked in the abdomen, while handcuffed and seated in the back of a police car.

In 80 percent of cases, the Amnesty report said, suspects were unarmed. In 36 percent of cases, the weapons were used due to "verbal noncompliance." Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU in Colorado, cited Amnesty International's report in a campaign to urge Denver police to increase their threat threshold for using TASERs.


Wait, wait. The best is yet to come. From the same article...


Taser's primary research, however, consisted of a company-paid farmer and doctor shocking a single pig in 1996 and five dogs in 1999 to see if the weapon would cause cardiac arrest. The tests were not published for independent review.


Here's one more for the road...
That story you said was an urban myth...
link

Edit: To reply


Police using force? Automatically a bad thing.


No..police using excessive force is a bad thing. Force is justifiable in many instances.



In teh aritcle, it expressly states that he was struggling and attemptign to escape the restraints. As for a tazer not subduing someone...well, it sure puts teh fight out of everyone I've seen it used against in one, two hits tops.


As I recall, the article stated that he was fidgeting. And yes, it subdues them..temporarily. You made it sound as though Tasers are some sort of sleep drug. The effect wears off quite quickly, so if the officers were looking for a way to calm the man down, they would have been better off with sedatives.



You seem to have this vast idea that every day, a cop goes out and kills someone.


Well, no. Although there are numerous deaths, and many, many reported instances of police brutality. I think you see my argument as ridiculous, and so you're blowing up what I say into ridiculous proportions. So have at with this next statement...


I also know officers aren't dying left and right. They average 50-60 deaths a year nationally from shootings, this according to the NLEOM. This is nothing compared to convenience store employees. And they don't even get medals. And about the same number of cops die every year from auto accidents. This doesn't lend an 'under fire' image to their profession, just going by the numbers. They definitely are fed up with arrogant citizens, but that's no excuse, so am I. You don't see me brutalizing my fellow citizens, do ya'?



What's the expression? ' You mess with the bull, you get the horns.


If you pinch a bulls butt you get the horns. Most civilized people are more restrained than your average rampaging bull. I think if the PDs of the nation need a mascot, something more appropriate can be agreed upon.



Now, you're all up in defending yourself....how come this doesn't apply to officers? Someone pulls a gun or a knife or what have you on me, I'm not going to feel bad about putting them down. Are you?


It does apply to officers, I never said anything to the contrary. Nor should you. And no. However, if I had a pregnant woman in the back seat of my car, I would not give her a 50k volt massage. If my twelve year old cut school, I would not whip out the Taser to administer punishment. If my 6 year old threatened to cut himself with a piece of glass, my first thought would not be "#, where'd I put my Taser."

This is the nature of the discussion. This is about unlawful, unwarranted abuse of power. If it were an issue of self defense in this case, or in any other case I've cited, the conversation would have been much shorter, something on the order of "Whadya know, some guy tried to stab a cop, and he got Tased, and had a heart attack. Hmmm. What a freakin' shame, maybe now that he's dead, he'll learn not to play with knives.
"



As for Tazers being the epitome of evil...


Nobody said that. Tasers are a tool, like any other. In an increasing number of instances this valuable tool is being misused by officers. This problem requires the attention of everyone involved, police and citizens both, so that we can come to an understanding of when to use the tool and when not to.



To me, the Taser is a vast improvement over giving every officer a blackjack. Hell, way back when, when teh spray came out...it was considered the devil since it killed people, too. Yeah...you get an asthmatic in the face with that stuff, or it gets sprayed in an enclosed area, and you can suffocate.


A tool is a tool is a tool. If it's used improperly, people can get hurt. People can die. A cop who used sap gloves to win a fist fight with a drunken wife beater was doing the right thing. A cop who used sap gloves to elicit a confession from a junkie thief was not doing the right thing. It doesn't matter if you gave all the officers wiffle bats, some sick puppies will take the bat and jam it where the sun don't shine, because they have a problem with the world. Sick people do sick things. Some cops are sick, because after all, they're just people. There wouldn't be a problem in weeding them out and serving justice, except for the fact that the justice system largely ignores their misdeeds, and so..the sickness festers.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
Temporary restraints- you might have noticed, it's not all that hard to get out of cuffs. temporary restraints are meant as a way to cool people off or transport them to a cell. The restraint in question seems to be similiar to The Wrap, which means it'll secure someone for about an hour, and after that you're running on borrowed time. Either the suspect will find a way out, or you've got him in a cell.

Depends on the types and the person.
How is zapping some one "cooling them off"?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
this would not have happened had the man
1)been taking his meds
2)not assaulted an officer
3)not fought back

seems like common sense NOT to fight back with a LEO.............what's the point? you screwed up? you should sit there keep your mouth shut and wait for your day in court. physically engaging a LEO or multiple LEO's is just going to cause more problems for yourself............

i'm sorry..............but if they guy would NOT have broken the law then this wouldn't have ever gotten started.

i didn't catch if the guy was having a seizure.............i think there are 3 different types of seizures........the worst being a grand mal and i believe a petit mal is the mildest. not certain on the others.

a mild seizure normally appears to the outsider as the person going off in a zone.........just dazed and staring.........noncommunicative. i don't recall violence being a characteristic of this level of seizure.

again........not sure about the middle level

the grand mal presents as a violent thrashing of the extremities. rolling of the head and eyes, grinding of teeth. it wouldn't appear as fighting with someone as the person has no control over the limbs. besides that in this scenario the family would have contacted the EMS folks NOT the police.

so it would seem that the LEO's were dealing with a combative, abusive person that refused to comply with all directions that he was given.

i'm sorry the man is dead but he ultimately started the process that ended in his own loss of life.

but that's my opinion.

angie



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
ok.........i got addtl info on the different types seizures.

www.caregiver.org...


Symptoms
There are two basic types of seizures: generalized and partial. These refer to how much of the brain experiences the abnormal electrical activity. The form, intensity and duration of the seizures are related to the number and type of brain cells which are affected.

In a Generalized (or Grand Mal) Seizure the whole brain is affected. The individual may experience lapse of consciousness and convulsions. Motor function and bladder or bowel control may also be affected.

In a Partial Seizure, abnormal electrical activity occurs in only a part of the brain. There is an alteration of consciousness in complete and partial seizures. “Simple partial” seizures do not affect consciousness. However, specific effects depend on the part of the brain involved. Common effects may include: a dazed state, automatic, purposeless behavior such as lip-smacking, or jerking movements in a certain part of the body.

************

ok so based on this information.............no where does it say the person will be combative...........


so based on this information i still stand by my original statements.

its unfortunate the man is dead............but he caused his own demise by assaulting family and officers.............and failing to comply with direct orders from the LEO's in attendance to calm down.......sit quietly.....

he didn't obey..........he continued to be abusive and combative........they tas'd him.............he continued.........repeat.......repeat......repeat.


you can't second guess ANYONE until you've been there and had the exact same scenario happen...........THEN you can make a statement.

armchair quarterbacking is ALWAYS easier than actually being on the playing field and calling the plays.


angie



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Muadibb
It's true that they've killed, at least a hundred according to Amnesty International. They're classified as LTL, not non-lethal, except of course when they're being sold to prospective clients like cities, then they're 100% non-lethal bunny love wrapped in an attractive plastic package.


WyrdeOne, first off, now the figure has come down from hundreds to 109 in both Canada and the US together.

Second of all, you are assuming that everyone of those people that the police has used tasers on did not do anything to warrant being tasered.

i would agree that it is probably true that some police officers do use excessive force against some people, but what you are claiming is an exageration...it is as simple as that. I have seen people fight with police, as in struggling and physically attacking them claiming they are innocent, when in fact they are not.

Very few people are willing to admit their mistakes or crimes to a police officer, or to anyone else. The fact is when a police officer tells you to stop struggling, and turn around to be handcuffed, it is better for you and for the safety of everyone involved to follow the orders. Pushing around a police officer is assaulting an officer of the law, and that is a crime. You want to be tough and think that you don't have to follow any law or orders? you will be detained, you resist and want to put up a fight, you will be tasered.

In any society there has to be laws and citizens should follow those laws....but we all know that many don't, some because they think they should be able to do anything they want, other's because they are in a powertrip themselves, know that they are guilty yet want to fight their arrest, or are under the influence of a drug or alcohol.

As i said, it is also true that some police officers do use excessive force sometimes, but in general most police officers would use force only when necessary.

You also have to admit that police officers are human beings too, and they have in many situations very little time to assest what they should do in a situation, so mistakes from time to time will happen. Does this mean we should get rid of police officers? You are out of your mind if you think so.

Should we get rid of tasers? More people will get hurt a lot more if police officers have to use more physical force instead of tasers, or even their guns if the criminal becomes very aggressive trying to hurt or kill the police officer and can't be stopped without the use of lethal force.



[edit on 5-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeusEx
What were the deputies supposed to do?


Deus, do you understand how many stories are picked up by other sites? You are saying this story has no merit because of where you found it despite it being in prestigious newspapers? I guess we should forget about 9/11 because we see discussion of it in underground sites?


Anyway.....

The cops should have called mental health professionals to sedate him and take him where he belongs. These cops only knew brutality, they are either guilty of aggravated assault, manslaughter, or if their training can be attributed to this man's death, then negligence.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join