Grandmother Tasered at Traffic Stop

reply to post by Insubordinate Soul



It's interesting that you refused to answer my question. I asked what the officer should have done.

I ruled out deadly force. I'm reluctant to say he should have used physical force, which could easily injure a 72 year old. I didn't say he should he should taser the old lady.

I asked the question. What should the officer have done?
You've got an old lady out of her car, in traffic, swearing at him and pushing him.

Imagine that you're the cop. What would you do?

reply to post by Wildbob77


He should have fire his whole magazine between her 2 eyes, do you know how dangerous 72 years old lady are?
That's crazy this guy only taze her, he was in serious danger, If it was me I would be in my pztrol car pissing my pants while waiting for swat to come.........................................................................................


More seriously now, I think he could have grab her without harming her and then arrest her, is this so hard?

Cops got a new toy so they play with it at the first occasion, aggressive they are aggressive they'll stay.

Apparently there is dash cam footage of the incident that hasn't been released to the public yet. Why is the Department refusing to release it? Perhaps, so they can get their story straight before the public sees it.

While doing 60 in a 45 work zone is certainly a traffic offense, I find the escalation to an arrest for such a trivial matter of failing to sign the ticket the crux of the problem here.

I have to ask why do police think they are so important that they have to arrest people for not singing the infraction? It seems they are supported by their superiors & policy in this behavior.

Obviously most states have outlawed this practice of signature requirement for the very reason that it often escalates the most minor offenses into an unnecessary detention with borderline civil rights violations and wastes time and taxpayers monies.

The police these days seem to be trained to arrest anyone who disrespects them or the system and apparently his commander supports this. While I have no doubt that this pig is a punk for tasing an old lady - the fact of the matter is that's what his been trained to do.

Yeah, he's a punk, but he's following training and orders - go after the system not the cog in its wheel.


[edit on 5-6-2009 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by FadeToBlack

 

Actually no, that isn't sufficient...if these cops are soooo dedicated to to upholding the even the tiniest fracture of the LAW, why don't more of them arrest their fellow cops when they volate the law? Why don't they police their own ranks? I"d like to see them be as zealous and aggressive when of the "blue gang" breaks they law.

When did you last see a cop stop an obviously illegal assault on a citizen? Never that I've seen. That's why there's always four or five guys who wind up charged when a dashcam video comes out.

So no, just admitting that maybe the cop was wrong to taser a 72-year old is not enough...the mindset still presumes, in the face of tons of evidence, that the cop is always right, and the perp, uh, citizen, is always a douchebag.

Look, I didn't say that we live in a world with a fair system. Not all cops are good, granted. Why don't they arrest their fellow officer for breaking the law? Simple, for the same reason you wouldn't turn your friend in for breaking the law. Not to mention, there are politics involved. You could jeopardize your job doing that, and possibly your life.

I didn't say maybe it was wrong to taser a citizen. I said it was wrong to taser her had she not done what I listed above. So what is the cop supposed to do if she is uncooperative and they need to arrest her? Wrestle her to the ground, break her frail bones? I'm pretty sure they would have been scorned at for that too. Damned if you don't, damned if you do. Tell me, what would you have done in that situation?

My mindset is not that the Police are always right, but that this should be measured on a case-by-case basis and not a measure of a universal Police standard. That is all I am saying.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

The point being, if brutal force is justified on this grandma for a minor infraction, then surely there are other more dangerous crimes that could be effectively stopped by such a vigilant officer!

[edit on 3-6-2009 by getreadyalready]

It depends on what you mean by 'brutal force'. Definition of brute force from online dictionary:

Brute Force, The application of predominantly physical
effort to achieve a goal that could be accomplished with
less effort if more carefully considered. Figuratively,
repetitive or strenuous application of an obvious or
simple tactic, as contrasted with a more clever stratagem
achieving the same goal with less effort; -- as, the first
prime numbers were discovered by the brute force
repetition of the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
[PJC]

That implies intense physical contact which was avoided by the use of a taser. Was the use of a taser more justified wrestling her to the ground and breaking her weak body?

Leave that up to yourself to decide.

[edit on 6/7/2009 by FadeToBlack]

Originally posted by Eight
I'm going to assume you are serious in asking me what does the oath a officer of the law take has to do with how he discharges his duties.

It has everything to do with it. I have seen officers get punched and kicked and all they did was subdue the perpetrator.Here,in this case, her action dictated that she be tased. A your reasoning is flawed if it's base on the points you have outlined above. It says that when an officer's authority is threaten,tase;and that will teach them.

I wasn't asking what the oath of an officer had to do with how his duties are accomplished, I was asking, what provoked the "Oath of an Officer" from you when I was talking about the what the lady had done. You totally ignored what I had said and said something else. That is like me talking about the law and you posting the bill of rights. It is significant, but it just wasn't relevant to what I was writing in which you quoted me for.

I wouldn't, also it's just a phrase...You should have known that because in the same sentence I showed you some electrical theory.

Again, you came out of left field and started talking about something else. Perhaps you wanted to portray that electrical current could kill you. Yes, I know that current can kill you. Trying to 'teach' me electrical theory is unnecessary and not to mention undermines your argument because tasers are meant to subdue an assailant and not kill them. All of the businesses who sold personal tasers would be encountering a backlash had many of the tasers killed. (And they haven't from my standpoint, my Uncle runs one of the biggest self defense stores in Dallas, he hasn't had much of a problem with people complaining.)

Tasers are an important tool for self-defense, but also can be abused (as in domestic disturbances, other police cases, ect) just like firearms. They are still an important part of protection. Deaths occur more frequently due to increased usage of tasers, but a good way to prevent against that would to be lowering the voltage of shocks (many Police and other personal tasers have settings that can change the voltage) which would help tremendously. (Though after research, I might reconsider usage of taser.)

You're getting flustered here.I don't Insult posters so I may have to tase you.

I wasn't 'flustered', I was talking about your condescending nature of your tone ("I don't have the time or inclination to teach you about electrical theory", ect.). I think you were flustered by writing that. Don't expect a response without a counter-response. You should be familiar Newton's Law of Motion considering you know the "Electrical Theory" that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction". Consider your statement a movement into the realm of stepping over the line of what dictates a personal attack, and mine pushing you back to neutral, actually, you weren't neutral, so back to biased and inflammatory (though I do admit your last post quoting me wasn't nearly as inflammatory as the first).

You also reminded me of Jack Nicholson in his quote "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." So from now on your posts will be read as if it is Jack Nicholson writing it.

So what you are saying is that a last resort device should now be used as a first and only resort device after an officer's patience has ran out?

No, I didn't say that (can you stop twisting my words, please?). I said that the Officer in this case should not be punished because he brought her in without her dying or for the fact she did not have any injuries. The fact is, tasers should be a last line of defense. I am not defending his usage of a taser, I am merely stating that in this case and I am going to stress this in this case he shouldn't be punished because she was safely subdued without being hurt. Now that I did more research into tasers, I don't believe he should have used it. But I still don't think he should be punished in this case.

If is seems that way to you then I apologize,I see all posters as equals.

Yes I am a hypocrite, why wouldn't I be?

I'm human so I posse that same faults as everybody else. That is what I was trying to convey to you when you accused us of judging which implied that you don't.

I appreciate that, but being a human being not everyone is equally favorable to all persons right? Oh, I have faults, and if I did in my reasoning I would admit it (like when I said I would reconsider taser usage), but you outright made a characterization of me so I made one of you (remember all actions have an opposite reaction). But my judgment of you happened to be correct when yours was baseless just for the sake of discrediting my ability to think by having clouded judgments (which in turn would discredit my argument).

To correctly engage my argument you wouldn't have made a judgment which concluded that I didn't have an ability to make a valid argument, which would make others not take it seriously. We are all rational, we don't need the personal attacks.

Well don't make statements that put you above human faults.

When did I say I was ever above human faults? If you mean being hypocritical, no I'm not hypocritical. I am a human, and I make mistakes, but not everyone is hypocritical. Changing opinions, yes, but not hypocritical.

I have contempt for all,the media, the good cops and the bad cops. the good cops are just as guilty when they keep their mouths shut.

Well I'm glad to hear that. I do agree that the good cops that keep their mouths shut are guilty when they don't speak, but some don't have a choice. Sometimes it is life threatening. Just keep that in mind.

Yes but the average citizen does not have the authority to use deadly force, nor do they carry a gun for work, nor are they in a position to send you to jail just on their word.

You do have a point.

But to be fair, my first post was inflammatory. If you were offended because of it I apologize. You probably got the wrong impression of me. But I still believe what I believe, and you still believe what you believe. If you want to debate it any further, we can, but lets stay civil.

Originally posted by Eight

According to Fadetoblack, this is justified.

Like I said before, you must have misunderstood me. I don't condone Police brutality, that is wrong, horrible, and gives them all a bad name.

I look at these on a case-by-case basis. I just happened to believe that this case might have been justified. I'm not so sure now.

[edit on 6/7/2009 by FadeToBlack]

reply to post by Wildbob77


And again I will repost, there is no proof that she was pushing or swearing at the Law inforcement Officer, she is innocent until proven guilty. IOf there is cam footage why wont the P/F or the A/G not release the footage?

To me they are either covering this up, or there is something more sinister going on.

reply to post by Laurauk


Indeed!

Personally I feel that if and I mean IF their is a real need to arrest a 72 year old woman, if a LEO can not hold her by the wrist and pull her arm back into position to put on the cuffs but must instead TAZE her....

Well then he must be totally worthless and incapable of enforcing the law due to physical weakness and psychological cowardliness.

And that seems to be a problem of epidemic proportions in law enforcement nationwide.

Originally posted by FadeToBlack

Originally posted by getreadyalready

The point being, if brutal force is justified on this grandma for a minor infraction, then surely there are other more dangerous crimes that could be effectively stopped by such a vigilant officer!

[edit on 3-6-2009 by getreadyalready]

It depends on what you mean by 'brutal force'. Definition of brute force from online dictionary:

Brute Force, The application of predominantly physical
effort to achieve a goal that could be accomplished with
less effort if more carefully considered. Figuratively,
repetitive or strenuous application of an obvious or
simple tactic, as contrasted with a more clever stratagem
achieving the same goal with less effort; -- as, the first
prime numbers were discovered by the brute force
repetition of the Sieve of Eratosthenes.
[PJC]

That implies intense physical contact which was avoided by the use of a taser. Was the use of a taser more justified wrestling her to the ground and breaking her weak body?

Leave that up to yourself to decide.

[edit on 6/7/2009 by FadeToBlack]

Hi Black,

Thanks for the definition, and it does create a unique perspective. What is more brutal: Physically handling, twisting, pushing or grasping a grandmother that may create pulled muscles, abrasions and possibly even a broken bone, OR tazering which will certainly create a fall, extreme muscle contractions, and possible heart failure?

I am not being facetious, as I believe that many on this thread, and in law enforcement truly believe the Tazer is more humane, but they are dead wrong. Look at the known effects of each, and the possible worst case scenario of each, and it is clear that tazering is far more brutal!

The point of what you quoted from me though is misconstrued. I was stating that a police officer, willing and capable of using force at all, would be more effectively used preventing more physical and serious crimes.

I don't believe any physical force during a traffic stop is justified unless another crime is discovered in the process. Speeding, refusing to sign, or verbal assault do not warrant ANY type of force being used! An officer willing, able, and eager to exert physical force, should be given the opportunity in the company of dangerous criminals, not grandmothers in traffic.

Police......used to be called................PEACE OFFICERS!!!!!!

If the dash cam had shown that the Officer was in the right it would have already been released to the news to help defend the department.

Now that they are not releasing the dash cam that leans toward the officers doing wrong. I would say they are trying to find a way to defend there actions.

No reason for this, and they ask why people are not working with the police. Well this is one of many.

The cop should have just left the lady ranting. A smart cop would have walked away. He had already done what he was supposed to do. I'm sure he was a rookie looking for excitement. He got his feelings hurt and responded with the lazy sadist's tool.

I totally believe that there are a lot of sadistic cops. I think a desire to hurt people is what drives a lot of people to be cops in the first place. Just watch a few episodes of Cops, how three or four of them will jump onto one skinny guy, twist their arms back in a torturous position, when they aren't even resisting.

Cops are not our friends, period.

Plus, how can that cop face his family/friends? If that was my brother or son I would tell him he is a disgusting pig. I can't say what I would do if he were my husband because I never would have married a cop in the first place. I would have lost all my friends.



[edit on 8-6-2009 by Bombeni]

I have had enough! It is time for us to fight back as a unified force. From now on we must all resist police in any way possible at any chance we get and if possible and you have one all cops should be tasered at every opportunity. They need to be reminded who is in charge and we need to remember that it is US!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Why are we bashing cops fro the actions of a few? Because they are the world's largest most well armed street gang, because they cover up one another's crimes, because when something like this happens we don't, the next day hear about how that cop was almost beaten to death by every other cop in his department, because when they get together in a group they compete to see who can be the biggest, toughest a**hole, because this has gone on for far too long for it not to be clear to every department in the nation that there is a problem yet they do nothing, because when something like this, or worse, happens the cop gets suspended with pay pending investigation(boy I wish I could F*** up and get a paid vacation for it) because we are all sick to death of this fascist BULLS**T! Do you want any more reasons? Come see me and I'll show you the scars I got for getting caught by the cops sitting in front of my house after 2am.

To be honest, I think many join the police to do good but their goodwill is soon completely subsumed by the evil bastards they have to work with, because let's be honest, anyone who likes to tell others what to do has something seriously wrong with them!

reply to post by Tiloke


If you are really a cop, you are a bad one because what you are saying is just not true. Also if you were really a cop and were quoting your written policy, I think you would have spelled recognizance correctly. I hope I am in Colorado sometime and encounter you and you give me a problem because I will taser your a** if you are lucky and I'm in a good mood. HAVE A NICE DAY PIG.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by neves49]

reply to post by Johnny_Sokko


That is freaking hilarious! Thank You this post was really getting me angry and now I can't stop laughing.

Yes tasering her was wrong.

But she was in the wrong as well, she was speeding and putting the the lives of people around her in danger, she doesn't really seem like the most easy going woman in the world either.

People act as if older people, even more so woman are these fragile little things that can do no harm and should never ever be questioned or punished(oh please).
Old woman can be some of the most nasty fowl mouthed people, and at times when having to deal with their ignorance and their above all attitude I wouldn't mind having a taser.

If she was unruely he simply could have used his own physical force but then he would have been bashed for man handling an old woman, she was the first to be in the wrong and then continued to do so, he should have cuffed her and let the judge take care of the rest.

This was a simple procedure she made it much more complicated then it needed to be, if it's true what she did that is.
Like I said before, people tend to feel beyond the law they feel entitled and that they don't have to pay for their wrong doings.
When others do everyday.
If you choose to go against the law and it's something as simple as a traffic ticket you should be prepared to take the consequence and if you don't, don't ____& moan about what happens to you after.
You put yourself in that situation.
Shes old enough to know better, she admitted to speeding maybe she's content with the many years she's lived but to carelessly speed on an already dangerous road is to take the lives of others into your own hands, she doesn't have that right.
No reason for her to throw some little tantrum like a child (again if that's what she really did.)

People tend to lack understanding of the BS that cops have to put up with on a daily basis they are an easy target for it.
It's easy to hate and blame them for everything, and no matter how he went about this he would have been judged and ridiculed because people are so sissified to the point where a little rude old lady should be able live above the law, until it's someone like her that turns one of your loved ones into road pizza.

Maybe the ones who strongly believe this was wrong should put a fund together to pay out her law suite so the other tax payers don't have to, or the money wasted on processing her.

I wonder if there is any video of this from a dash cam?

Maybe I have a raw nerve for self entitled do no wrong little old ladies but I can't help to feel that she was in the wrong and escalated it to a needless level.

I think you are REALY misdirecting your anger hear. I used to have a pretty dangerous job as a high rise window cleaner. The pay was above average but not what it should have been. The owner of the company would always distance himself from any one who had not lasted 2 years. I noticed that all the "senior officers" as they referred to themselves all had the same Commissariat attitude and personality. It really was a brutal job not because the work itself was very physical. But because we were constantly berated and messed with, by our supposed superiors. It was almost like a prison mentality. When I finally had put in my 2 years, I was offered to be promoted to "lowest on the totem pole" supervisor. I had ma bee spoke 3 times to the owner "The Colonel" before that. That is when I found out what I was in for. He was a brutal, hateful, deceitful man, that had earlier that week weaseled his way out of a work mans comp case in which some one had really messed up there back. All eyes where on me to go out and be the biggest a-hole around. Anyway I parleyed my exp and took a pay cut but got a job where I could live with my self. My point is this cops are only vessels of the government rather it be the state or federal. To me the ones we should be getting ready to "tar and feather" is the heads of state who are mandating such action. The government at the top is who we need to focus on, for they are the ones dead set on this fascist or communist (it all equals the same) state. People better start waking up. Its time to hold the mayors, governors, and especially the president him self to account and show them that it is WE THE PEOPLE who run this country!

reply to post by FadeToBlack


You fully illustrate a large part of the problem-First I don't have any friends who would taser an old lady and if I saw an acquaintance do it I would turn them in in a heart beat, Second, cops are supposed to uphold the law and as such should be held to a higher standard while at work(when I am at work I do my job the way it is supposed to be done not however I feel like), Third, If the majority of them were honest and decent human beings whose goal was to uphold the law, no one would have to fear recrimination or losing their job for doing the right thing.
In addition to all of that there is the obvious point that people who like to tell other people what to do have some serious mental problems. Decent, sane human beings just want to be left alone and leave others alone. This is not to say that we need NO law enforcement, but we certainly don't need the type of criminal thugs in blue that we have now. One answer to this may be to get rid of almost all of the cops and then make sure that we pay the ones that we do have enough that we don't get the kind of semi-literate, crypto-fascist goons we have now.