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.
Since you're talking to me out of the corner of your mouth, and the other member was referring to my claim, I'll be glad to address it with you.
Issuing a loaded question with a false dilemma, and then trying to cover up what you did, is over the line in terms of good faith in discussion ... IMO.
originally posted by: puzzled2
a reply to: Granby
You have no clue do you?
1. Controlling someone against there will means inflicting some level of pain. You hold they struggle you hold tighter, pain.
They then wriggle, kick, spit, anything with out any restraint to hurt You in an effort to get away.
All the time the police are not allowed to hurt the poor little darling.
Please how much training have you had controlling someone that is willing to kill you to get away?
FYI play wrestling doesn't count
originally posted by: face23785
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Also, I'm not sure that that we need to be talking about "cleansing society" in the same thread we're talking about police killing ANOTHER Black man in questionable circumstances.
For what it's worth (and I've lived here my whole life) tazers have ALWAYS been pushed as non-lethal. Even though we knnow that under the exact right circumstances it could cause a heart-attack in some people.
I don't personally think it was an "execution" ... but it was really really poor judgement on the part of the officers.
A lot of these tasers look just like a gun. If you're the cop and he turns around and points something at you that looks like a gun, are you gonna risk your life on the hope that it's just a taser?
Even if it is just the taser, are you gonna trust this violent, intoxicated man to just leave you alone after he tases you?
You'll equivocate because you don't want to see the other side, but the answer to both those questions is no you wouldn't.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Granby
There’s no harm in that at all. The problem is paying for it. You get defensive tactics in the academy and refreshers every so often. Sometimes. But “six months” won’t cut it. Like any other skill, it has to be continuous training or it degrades over time. Continuous training costs money. Money comes from budgets. Budgets are set by politicians.
The net result is that most agencies settle on “refresher courses” and cops, many of whom don’t make a ton of money to begin with, are left with the choice of paying for it out of pocket or not paying for it.
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Granby
Why aren't we talking about if the guy hadn't fought with the cop and not taken the taser in the first place? Why are we not talking about that one?
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Granby
6 month program and after completing you must then do three 1 hour days a month.
Okay so you mean like....continuous training? Kinda like what I said?
Got it.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: TorqueyThePig
I really don't see a bi-annual psych review/exam to be a big deal. You said you were a cop; do you think it would be too much to ask?
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko
but if you live in a city, it's just not possible for an officer to know everyone.
Isn't that why they used to have beat cops? So they could get to know everyone (almost anyway)?
Seems to me that tiered system was the best way to handle things. One or two beat cops, their neighborhood, they know the people. Then city-wide cops called in when something big happens or for beat cop backup.
TheRedneck