"If there's three officers, it's nothing to tell a 6-year-old holding a glass, if you feel threatened, 'Hey, here's a piece of candy, hey, here's a toy. Let the glass go,'" the boy's mother told CNN.

Some mother she is - she should have taught her son that you never take candy or toys from strangers.

103 - Vlad:

Of the last three you posted, I'd say that #1 is a bit more excusable than the others, given the circumstances. Although still it looks bad.

The other two - jesus god.

"But still, go eff yourself if you're going to wildly toss around vile, defamatory rhetoric like that, for no other reason than to gratify your need to get in an unrelated shot at men who are infinitely better than you."

He could've phrased it better, but I think he's talking about contracted troops from Blackwater and such, as opposed to the actual army.

The inability of the army to apply military standards of justice to contractors is a serious issue, in that badly-trained and/or overly-aggressive contractors effectively poison the well for real troops in Iraq, and we're never going to be able to effectively pursue and eliminate insurgent groups without having the general Iraqi populace on our side.

It helps if you click on the links, Srul.

It helps if you pay attention to what I was responding to: Restraining a large, muscular drunk.

For which you responded: Just talk nice to him.

yeah, right.

It has nothing to do with the examples you cited.

Nice attempt to change the subject, though. Too bad some of us are able to follow the train of conversation.

tf, i really don't have a dog in this fight, but i have to say that you keep making odd declarations. ascribing an extreme position to someone who doesn't agree with you doesn't make you credible. afaict, no one is cop hating on this thread. i think even vlad would agree that cops have a tough job to do. his beef seems to be with tasers as a tool that law enforcement doesn't quite know how to implement.

OK, I can't stop posting. I love the kids.

Ho ho ho!

A Broomfield police officer pleaded guilty last week to child abuse and prohibited use of a weapon for shooting a girl in the face with a Taser while off duty.

William Van Arsdale, a 16-year veteran, was arrested in January and placed on "modified duty" by the department. He continued to work but was not allowed to carry a weapon or wear a uniform.
[...]
Van Arsdale was a motorcycle officer and also ran the department's Santa Cops program giving holiday gifts to the needy. -Denver Post

Treating his weapon with the respect it deserves, Van Arsdale shot his stepdaughter in the eye (leaving her partially blind) while demonstrating proper use of his taser at the breakfast table. He then waited for 40 minutes before taking her to the hospital.

A handicapped kid holding a stick is ALMOST as scary as Jim Rice:

An autistic teenager was tasered by police in the early morning hours of Dec. 5, when he was found walking shirtless and shoeless down the Broadway Bridge.

According to his great-grandmother, Sir J. Millage has an extremely severe case of autism. He also has a disease where he cannot feel extremes in temperature, which is why he was able to be out in cold weather without clothing. His head swerves from side to side and he has outbursts of profanity that can last from three hours to three days due to Tourettes syndrome. He has never been known to be physically violent.

When police saw the 5'10", 260 pound 15-year-old walking down the bridge, they say they were unaware of his illness. Police say it appeared he was holding a metal rod or stick. After Millage did not respond to commands, officers used tasers and struck him with a baton.

Millage lives with his great-grandmother, Pastor Mary Overstreet Smith in Portland. She says he snuck out a window that night and the incident with police "tore her heart out." She says that because of his low intelligence level, he cannot respond to commands and that police should be able to tell the difference between a person who has autism and one that is high on drugs. -KOIN-TV

Tasers and child epileptics, two great tastes that taste great together:

A local mother is outraged after she says her 14 year old son was tased by Toledo Police at the Westfield Franklin Park Mall.

14-year-old, Martez Moore is in the hospital today after being tased Friday night by Toledo Police officers.

Martez is a special needs child with epilepsy.

"3 officers slammed my son head first into the ground, a 14 year old, (and) they maced him," said his mother Marcia Moore. She says officers then tased her son three times.

The police report says the boy was tased twice.
[...]
Martez was arrested and put into a police vehicle. He began having epileptic seizures and was taken to the hospital for treatment.

"When they got him to St. V's nobody told them this child had been tased," said Moore. -WNWO-TV

Tase me, baby!:

In a confrontation captured on videotape, a hospital security guard fired a stun gun to stop a defiant father from taking home his newborn, sending both man and child crashing to the floor. Now William Lewis says his baby girl suffers from head trauma because she was dropped.

"I've got to wonder what kind of moron would Tase an adult holding a baby," said George Kirkham, a former police officer and criminologist at Florida State University. "It doesn't take rocket science to realize the baby is going to fall." -Associated Press

"i think even vlad would agree that cops have a tough job to do. his beef seems to be with tasers as a tool that law enforcement doesn't quite know how to implement."

Of course. Police work involves large stretches of frustrating tedium, with occasional interludes of serious danger. It's hard, hard work.

That said, people who want to be police officers know what the job involves, and they go into it with their eyes open. If they aren't prepared to be helpful and patient with idiots until there's no other reasonable option, they should probably consider another line of work that won't involve making determinations of acceptable levels of force.

"Restraining a large, muscular drunk.

For which you responded: Just talk nice to him.

yeah, right.

It has nothing to do with the examples you cited."

Since you freely admit that I wasn't talking about using tasers on large, muscular drunks, I'm not sure why you decided to ask me about that. Nevertheless...

Trying to reason with someone is never a bad first step. Maybe he's willing to let you give him a ride home, where he can sleep it off. Maybe he's got a legitimate beef of some sort, and just isn't sober enough to articulate it right now, but he'll still calm down if he thinks you're willing to listen to him.

If he's actively violent, but also truly drunk, then it probably won't be that hard to physically subdue him with minimal contact. Grab an arm, use an armlock, get him on the ground, and apply the cuffs. If you don't think you can handle him yourself, you can always call for backup.

Nothing is ideal, and there are going to be situations where "non-lethal" weapons like Tasers and pepper sprays are the only realistic option. The problem is that they're often used as the dispute-resolution tool of first resort, instead of last resort, because they involve less actual work/risk for the officers.

I think, of all the posts, one of the first ones, with the 8 month pregnant lady who was tased for refusing to sign a traffic ticket. Thats just crazy.

I got here late, but anyone who's pissed off by "While I appreciate the work done by good law enforcement officers, I don't value their lives and safety over anyone elses." is stunningly stupid.

Since you freely admit that I wasn't talking about using tasers on large, muscular drunks, I'm not sure why you decided to ask me about that. Nevertheless...

Freely admit you weren't talking about it? Guess again -- that is EXACTLY what you were talking about when you decided to become an insulting little prick:

54. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 14, 2008 at 02:58 PM (#2691279)
"O.K., I'll bite...what is the safest way to subdue a 6'3" 210# athlete who is drunk out of his gourd?"

Minimum necessary force. It's hard to accidentally kill someone with aikido, for example.

Talking can also be effective.

Talkin, in fact, is very rarely effective against these kind of people.

And as for the rest of your post: "If he's actively violent, but also truly drunk, then it probably won't be that hard to physically subdue him with minimal contact" -- I think you watched too many episodes of "Kung Fu".

Since you have amply demonstrated two of teh main attributes of trolldom -- lying and being insulting -- toodle-ooo.

Does anyone else find this remarkable? Is it SOP for police departments elsewhere to tase people for emulating Ghandi and offering passive resistance, i.e., presenting no threat whatsoever to police or bystanders?

Unfortunately, yes. It's called 'pain compliance,' and it's considered entirely acceptable. (See this long thread on Volokh for an extensive discussion of the issue.) Passive resistance is deemed to be "resisting arrest" by the police just as much as active resistance is.

. We've immunized our mercenary army from responsibility for crimes committed overseas.

No matter how many times you say it, it's still false. There is no immunity.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: You're saying that the life of a policeman has more intrinsic value than the life of a civilian?

Police are civilians. One of the problems with the police mentality is that they too often forget this.

Cops risk their neck for us,

Police propaganda. Being a cop is not a particularly dangerous profession. Taxi drivers -- now they risk their necks for us. And the most dangerous profession is routinely that of logging. Not only aren't cops killed very often, but most of those killed are in traffic accidents, not in shootouts with violent felons.

Cops not only don't normally risk their own necks, but they normally aren't doing it "for us," either. Sure, on television they're actually out chasing down murderers all the time. In real life, not so much.

"Talkin, in fact, is very rarely effective against these kind of people."

I don't agree, but let's roll with it. Even if it only works "very rarely", "very rarely" isn't the same thing as "never", and I don't think I've ever read a story about someone with an enlarged heart or cardiac arrhythmia being TALKED to death. If you could prevent even a small number of deaths by providing extra police training on how to talk people down, why wouldn't you do it?

"I think you watched too many episodes of "Kung Fu"."

When I was in college, I took martial arts classes from a guy who also had a paid gig teaching the local police to disarm with minimal contact. It's honestly not that hard to subdue an unarmed person without choking/tasing/beating them, if you know what you're doing, and get a reasonable amount of practice at it. Particularly if they're drunk; drunks want to fall down - you just need to show them how to do it.

"Freely admit you weren't talking about it? Guess again -- that is EXACTLY what you were talking about when you decided to become an insulting little prick:"

Don't sell me short. I'm always an insulting little prick.

I'm sorry I didn't exactly understand where you were trying to go with your irrelevant strawman, and thus didn't answer it in exactly the way you wanted.

Police are civilians

Citizen On Patrol

Police propaganda.

It's not propaganda, David. It is a dangerous (compared to others) profession. But you do make my point for me. To me (and I only speak for me), the danger/risk/whatever doesn't rise to the point that justifies capital murder charges. This isn't the Israeli army. We don't force people to become cops. They choose the profession and the risks that come with it. While they're laudable for making that choice, they do make it on their own.

Of course, according to some, that makes me a nitwit.

Some 2005 numbers on common occupations with a high death rate. Police didn't crack the top 10. Deadliest, by far, was fishing, with logging second and piloting aircraft third.

I'm kind of surprised that mining didn't make the list.

It is a dangerous (compared to others) profession.

Jeff, some subsets of policing are more dangerous than, say, insurance adjustor, or goldfish salesman, or birthday party clown. Some subsets of policing are not dangerous in the least, unless a cop is worried about paper cuts.

But the point is, the job of policeman as a whole does not rank high on the danger list. Police propagandists would have people believe that every time a cop starts his shift, he's "risking his neck." He's not. Even if he's in one of the subsets that actually do deal with violent criminals, it's not very likely he'll be hurt. Unless he forgets that he's only a wannabe soldier and decides to kick in someone's door at night because dynamic raids are sexier than knocking on a door in the daytime.

But the point is, the job of policeman as a whole does not rank high on the danger list.

It very well may not rank "high", but I have to believe that on-the-job injuries and fatalities for police officers are above median by profession. Is that not true? We're basically agreeing here, but I haven't done any research into the issue whatsoever. To me, it doesn't matter if it is *the* most dangerous profession, as in 5 cops are gunned down every day. The profession of the victim shouldn't matter in sentencing.

"It very well may not rank "high", but I have to believe that on-the-job injuries and fatalities for police officers are above median by profession. Is that not true?"

It's true for fatalities, or at least it was in 1999. 45% from homicides, 31% from highway crashes, most of the rest from helicopter accidents and vehicle accidents with an officer on foot.

The profession of the victim shouldn't matter in sentencing.

I don't think it's the profession in the abstract that matters, it's the context. I'm pretty sure--though I haven't checked the laws state-by-state or anything--that if someone shoots a plainclothes cop in, say, a mugging gone bad, the punishment is the same as shooting anyone.

On the other hand, if you start kill a cop who is busting up a drug corner or whatever innocuous activity a lot of beat cops probably do once a week, it isn't just the crime of shooting the PO, it's a direct challenge to the authority inherent in law enforcement.

Now, if you don't buy that that merits extra penalty (I don't think anything deserves the death penalty, so there's that) then we can agree to disagree. But I don't think it is quite as simple as you portray.

The profession of the victim shouldn't matter in sentencing.

If the victim's a politician, you should get a reduced sentence.

And Nieporent wins the thread. Good night, everybody!

I don't think it's the profession in the abstract that matters, it's the context. I'm pretty sure--though I haven't checked the laws state-by-state or anything--that if someone shoots a plainclothes cop in, say, a mugging gone bad, the punishment is the same as shooting anyone.

I honestly think you're wrong, in that at least one case has fallen into an equivalent/analogous situation, but I can't say that I can come up with the case right now.

On the other hand, if you start kill a cop who is busting up a drug corner or whatever innocuous activity a lot of beat cops probably do once a week, it isn't just the crime of shooting the PO, it's a direct challenge to the authority inherent in law enforcement.

I don't want to sound like we're diametrically opposed here, because I don't think we're anything remotely like it. However, why is "a direct challenge to the authority inherent in law enforcement" worse than "a direct challenge to the authority inherent in education" (killing a teacher) or "a direct challenge to the authority inherent in providing electricity" (killing a ConEd man)?

Now, if you don't buy that that merits extra penalty (I don't think anything deserves the death penalty, so there's that) then we can agree to disagree. But I don't think it is quite as simple as you portray.

I've always said that I think I'm the lone Texan that doesn't have a problem with the death penalty in the abstract but has never seen a case that I would vote for it. I don't think we're that different. I agree with the very general principle that there are crimes for which people deserve to be put to death. I don't think there's ever been a case that meets the rock-solid proof that I would require in order to vote for it. If, in voir dire, the prosecutor asked me "Could you give someone the death penalty?", I think I could honestly answer yes. But that doesn't mean he probably has a chance in hell of me actually voting for it in that particular case.

"I don't think there's ever been a case that meets the rock-solid proof that I would require in order to vote for it."

At risk of Godwining the thread, what about the Nuremberg defendants?

At risk of Godwining the thread, what about the Nuremberg defendants?

I can't say I've gone through the transcripts enough (who has, really?) to really comment, but: For me to vote for the death penalty, I would have to have absolutely zero doubt in my mind that this person committed that crime. And then that that crime deserves the death penalty. You bring up a good question, but even still, I'd probably vote for life.

However, why is "a direct challenge to the authority inherent in law enforcement" worse than "a direct challenge to the authority inherent in education" (killing a teacher) or "a direct challenge to the authority inherent in providing electricity" (killing a ConEd man)?

Because I think the authority inherent in law enforcement is a lot more important to maintaining a civil society than that of teaching or electricity or whatever. (Of course, I'm pretty sure killing a mailman is a possibly death penalty offense, so there you are.)

I haven't read through the thread, but is it really true that some sadistic woman somewhere named her child "Josh Booty"?

Not quite as bad as "Notorious", "Dominitrix", or "Nosmoking", perhaps (all real names), but that's still a pretty spaced out Momma.

Of course, according to some, that makes me a nitwit.

No, it's the being from Texas that does it.

Because I think the authority inherent in law enforcement is a lot more important to maintaining a civil society than that of teaching or electricity or whatever.

So, even though you're anti-death penalty, you don't disagree that the maintaining of a civil society ipso facto rises to a justification for state-sponsored death? I ask in all seriousness. I can't say I necessarily disagree with it.

"Not quite as bad as "Notorious", "Dominitrix", or "Nosmoking", perhaps (all real names), but that's still a pretty spaced out Momma."

At a summer job in high school, I once cashed a check for a woman named "Mary Christmas". She had a wedding ring, though, so it's ultimately her own damn fault.

At a summer job in high school, I once cashed a check for a woman named "Mary Christmas". She had a wedding ring, though, so it's ultimately her own damn fault.

My wife grew up next to the Hare family. Mother was Hedda.

At a summer job in high school, I once cashed a check for a woman named "Mary Christmas". She had a wedding ring, though, so it's ultimately her own damn fault.

maiden name swanson ... or samsonite

I haven't read through the thread, but is it really true that some sadistic woman somewhere named her child "Josh Booty"?

Not quite as bad as "Notorious", "Dominitrix", or "Nosmoking", perhaps (all real names), but that's still a pretty spaced out Momma.

Am I just missing what Andy is going for here? The closest thing I can come to when pronouncing Josh Booty is Djibouti, and I can't figure out why naming a child after an obscure country would be so bad.

Not quite as bad as "Notorious", "Dominitrix", or "Nosmoking", perhaps (all real names), but that's still a pretty spaced out Momma."

At a summer job in high school, I once cashed a check for a woman named "Mary Christmas". She had a wedding ring, though, so it's ultimately her own damn fault.

Those three names I mentioned were from a high school in Itta Bena, Mississippi about 8 or 10 years ago. I just remembered the fourth one, which was "Semetric."

Of course the all-time winner (for me, anyway) was the rather commonplace Russian name that was given to children born during the first Soviet Five Year Plan.

Am I just missing what Andy is going for here? The closest thing I can come to when pronouncing Josh Booty is Djibouti, and I can't figure out why naming a child after an obscure country would be so bad.

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

"Of course the all-time winner (for me, anyway) was the rather commonplace Russian name that was given to children born during the first Soviet Five Year Plan."

Be a good name for an offensive lineman.

While it's clear that out of a million or so cops with Tasers, you can come up with a few bad incidents of their usage each year, non of the taser haters has clearly explained what the cops should do instead? The problems with misuse of tasers are training/discipline issues, taking the taser out of all cops hands so that a few bad cops can beat mentally disturbed people with batons instead doesn't make the problem better. The taser is probably one of the greatest advances in police tools in recent history and I would bet has saved 10x the lives it's cost.

When I was in college some kid high on drugs attempted forcible entry into a party we were having. We tried to politely rebut him, but he turned violent, punching and kicking, so me and my friends beat him severely and threw him out on the street. He was too high to quit and despite being bruised and bleeding and half his clothes torn off, kept coming at us. My brother, a 6'6" pacifist intervened between him and us to try to save the guy. He then punched my brother in the face, so painfully that my gentle brother flipped out and started beating the daylights out of the kid. As he was doing this, the police pulled up and pulled my brother off the smaller kid. The kid then punched the cop, who threw him forcibly against the car, beat him and cuffed him.

I was told they made a quick stop on the way to jail and beat him with batons for a while. I'm guessing that those cops wouldn't have been so pissed had they been armed with tasers and could have just subdued him from a distance without taking a head shot for their efforts.

I think the anti-taser people wrap a few horrific incidents around a complete lack of understanding of what it's normally like to attempt to physically restrain some one who is just out of control, whether they are a 200lb man, a 140 lb college student, a 100 lb woman, or even a 90 lb eleven year old. Probably 98% of the time the cops make the decision they are right. When a person has restrained and there is no reasoning with them, a taser is usually the least objectional method.

At a summer job in high school, I once cashed a check for a woman named "Mary Christmas".

I went to high school with a girl named Mary Chris Smith. Pretty original thinking by her parents.

When I was in college, I took martial arts classes from a guy who also had a paid gig teaching the local police to disarm with minimal contact. It's honestly not that hard to subdue an unarmed person without choking/tasing/beating them, if you know what you're doing, and get a reasonable amount of practice at it. Particularly if they're drunk; drunks want to fall down - you just need to show them how to do it.

This is the biggest lie on the thread. No matter how skilled you are, it just takes one wild swing to accidently connect and stun you or knock you unconscious, and you are at the mercy of an angry drunk. You have watched too many kung fu movies without realizing they are all fake, try watching something real like UFC. And there is no such thing as an "unarmed person", during almost any violent confrontation we are all surrounded by potential weapons, bottles, sticks, glass, rocks, etc, that can wound, blind, and maim without even going into the hidden weapons many "unarmed" people carry (car keys, knives, etc).

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

Damn it! Is this going to be my Seinfeldian "rhymes with a female body part" moment? Because I haven't had my Delores epiphany yet.