Funny Video (site NSFW, video is)

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Isn't it standard procedure for all cops to get hit with a taser at least once during their training so they know what it is like? Wouldn't you think the departments would have to understand the risks to be almost zero before allowing their people to go through this?

Ding. Winner.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Isn't it standard procedure for all cops to get hit with a taser at least once during their training so they know what it is like? Wouldn't you think the departments would have to understand the risks to be almost zero before allowing their people to go through this?

Yes. However, the use of a taser in a controlled environment with the minimum setting is hardly the same as use in the field. And while Blackie seems persuaded, the numerous people who have died show it is not just fiction.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yes. However, the use of a taser in a controlled environment with the minimum setting is hardly the same as use in the field. And while Blackie seems persuaded, the numerous people who have died show it is not just fiction.

People die every day. Bee stings. Falling down stairs. Hail. I can show deaths in virtually any single activity. So the fact that people died isn't that important - it's how many died vs. the number of uses. Lightening kills more people each year than Tazers. For cryin' out loud, AIRBAGS cause more deaths each year. It would seem to me that given the number of uses vs. the number of deaths, the risk/danger is so minute as to not even be a valid consideration.

So you're going to have to find something better to justify your assertion of unreasonable "risk" and "danger". If anything, the statistics firmly support the safety of Tazers.

[Dutch]

First article I found....from 2001.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in531428.shtml

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks produced the single deadliest day in the history of U.S. law enforcement - 72 officers killed - yet almost as many died in nonterrorist incidents during 2001 as violence against police rose to a four-year high.

...

"Law enforcement is a high-risk occupation," the FBI report says. "The men and women who serve the public in this way place themselves in danger as a matter of routine."

...

There were also almost 57,000 assaults on officers as they performed their duties in 2001, with 80 percent of them involving hands, fists, feet and the like.

If it was me, I'd rather be safe than sorry....tazer their ass! Twice. I'm not dying for any irrate person. Sorry.

[randal7]

A couple thoughts:

Refusal to comply with commands, particularly when told "you are under arrest" is probably the most reliable sign that your suspect is going to run or fight. Not 100% by far, but definitely not a time for drawn out negotiations, which only allows the suspect more time to plan or look for an opening. Non-compliance = danger.

And for those of you who think they should have grabbed her and pulled her out: have you ever fought with someone who really wanted to fight and didn't care if they get hurt? Those people aren't common, but when you get one it's nearly impossible to control them physically, not get hurt yourself, and not hurt them. Even if it's a 90 lb woman (actually they are worse because a male officer is usually hesitant to go full force). So, tools like tasers and pepper spray are always preferable to physical confrontation. People die in fights too, and injury/death is more likely in a full-on fight than from a tasering.

[Raiders Army]

Again, evidence has proved that only three people have died from the Taser since 2000. Three others are inconclusive. That is possibly six out of about half a million uses. (See my post on page one of this thread)

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Again, evidence has proved that only three people have died from the Taser since 2000. Three others are inconclusive. That is possibly six out of about half a million uses. (See my post on page one of this thread)

Huh? Where are you getting these numbers?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

People die every day. Bee stings. Falling down stairs. Hail. I can show deaths in virtually any single activity. So the fact that people died isn't that important - it's how many died vs. the number of uses. Lightening kills more people each year than Tazers. For cryin' out loud, AIRBAGS cause more deaths each year. It would seem to me that given the number of uses vs. the number of deaths, the risk/danger is so minute as to not even be a valid consideration.

So you're going to have to find something better to justify your assertion of unreasonable "risk" and "danger". If anything, the statistics firmly support the safety of Tazers.

Where are you getting your use numbers about tazer use? That seems to be an incredibly important part of your argument.

Using a weapon that causes death, albeit infrequently, should only be used sparingly and not in non-threatening situations (which definitely covers the second tazing and maybe the first as well). Why is that so unreasonable?

And I was busy last night and this morning, so I didn't watch the video again.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by randal7

A couple thoughts:

Refusal to comply with commands, particularly when told "you are under arrest" is probably the most reliable sign that your suspect is going to run or fight. Not 100% by far, but definitely not a time for drawn out negotiations, which only allows the suspect more time to plan or look for an opening. Non-compliance = danger.

And for those of you who think they should have grabbed her and pulled her out: have you ever fought with someone who really wanted to fight and didn't care if they get hurt? Those people aren't common, but when you get one it's nearly impossible to control them physically, not get hurt yourself, and not hurt them. Even if it's a 90 lb woman (actually they are worse because a male officer is usually hesitant to go full force). So, tools like tasers and pepper spray are always preferable to physical confrontation. People die in fights too, and injury/death is more likely in a full-on fight than from a tasering.

I don't know where people are concluding that physical restraint is more likely to result in death. Pepper spray is much preferable to a tazer, IMO, but there are many alternatives short of spray as well. De-escalation should always be the first course of action, and from my memory of the video, this cop did not seem particularly concerned with de-escalation.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Where are you getting your use numbers about tazer use? That seems to be an incredibly important part of your argument.

Using a weapon that causes death, albeit infrequently, should only be used sparingly and not in non-threatening situations (which definitely covers the second tazing and maybe the first as well). Why is that so unreasonable?

And I was busy last night and this morning, so I didn't watch the video again.

I guess if you bothered to read the rest of the thread (think they're back on page 1), you'd know where these numbers are coming from. The deaths are an important part of YOUR argument that Tazers pose some real risk of death and therefore shouldn't be used. All statistics thus posted totally refute your assumption and suposition. So until you can show that Tazers are unduly dangerous and risky, your arguments on this point are null and void.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I don't know where people are concluding that physical restraint is more likely to result in death. Pepper spray is much preferable to a tazer, IMO, but there are many alternatives short of spray as well. De-escalation should always be the first course of action, and from my memory of the video, this cop did not seem particularly concerned with de-escalation.

I would say the situation was de-escalated rather nicely. After all, after resisting arrest and taking a swing at the cop, she was tazed and rather docile after that.

As for physical restraint being more or less likely to result in death, I'm not sure how anyone would prove or disprove this beyond common sense. By the way, I think it's rather short sighted to just talk about deaths. We also need to consider injuries. After all, the tazer was designed to prevent suspect and officer injuries AND deaths.

Unless the tazer is grossly more likely to injure/kill the suspect, then it stands to reason that the tazer would be preferable to physical force. Physcial force has double the chance of injuring someone (the cop and/or the suspect) whereas the tazer will subdue only the suspect. Therefore, the chance of injury using a tazer would have to exceed the combined chance of injury using physical force. I very much doubt that's the case.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I guess if you bothered to read the rest of the thread (think they're back on page 1), you'd know where these numbers are coming from. The deaths are an important part of YOUR argument that Tazers pose some real risk of death and therefore shouldn't be used. All statistics thus posted totally refute your assumption and suposition. So until you can show that Tazers are unduly dangerous and risky, your arguments on this point are null and void.

Blackie, don't be an ass. You will notice that Raiders Army noted that he was looking for "use" statistics and I commented that they are hard to find (I even wondered if they were collected). Knowing how many deaths there are is only half of the needed information. Without relevant use-in-the-field stats, they are pretty meaningless. I will accept for purposes of this discussion the 70 plus tazer death count from 2000-2004, but notice the incredible escalation in numbers of deaths in the last couple years. I'm curious how many times they were used in the field during each year.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I would say the situation was de-escalated rather nicely. After all, after resisting arrest and taking a swing at the cop, she was tazed and rather docile after that.

I know you think the whole is funny, but really this is just silly to say. If he had killed her with 6 shots to the head, it would have "de-escalated rather nicely" according to your definition. De-escalation means something very different in rules of police conduct.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for physical restraint being more likely to result in death, I'm not sure how anyone would prove or disprove this beyond common sense. Unless the tazer is grossly more likely to injure the suspect, then it stands to reason that the tazer would be preferable to physical force. Physcial force has double the chance of injuring someone (the cop and/or the suspect) whereas the tazer will subdue only the suspect. Therefore, the chance of injury using a tazer would have to exceed the combined chance of injury using physical force. I very much doubt that's the case.

Tazers also cause injuries short of death, but that is a separate issue. Look at the death stats for precints that didn't use chokeholds (or have since eliminated them) or other weapons and you will find even fewer cases of death than with tazers. And death is a much more important consideration than injury. I'd rather have 50 perps with broken arms (that heal) than 1 dead perp due to tazer.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Blackie, don't be an ass. You will notice that Raiders Army noted that he was looking for "use" statistics and I commented that they are hard to find (I even wondered if they were collected). Knowing how many deaths there are is only half of the needed information. Without relevant use-in-the-field stats, they are pretty meaningless. I will accept for purposes of this discussion the 70 plus tazer death count from 2000-2004, but notice the incredible escalation in numbers of deaths in the last couple years. I'm curious how many times they were used in the field during each year.

Good luck finding them. I think those would be rather difficult to come by. Even very biased groups like Amnesty International said there were only 103 between 2001 and 2005. Within the last 4 years, tasers have been listed as a "contributing" factor to death only 3 times and not ruled out on 3 others. In short, there has yet to be a case where the taser was the DIRECT cause of death. There are an estimated 100,000 uses of tasers among 6,000 departments in the USA. So while you may accept "70" as the appropriate number, that's probably a gross overestimation.

Just for comparison's sake, Pepper spray is blamed by the same groups touting the tazer statistics as a contributing factor in about 63 deaths in a similar time period.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I know you think the whole is funny, but really this is just silly to say. If he had killed her with 6 shots to the head, it would have "de-escalated rather nicely" according to your definition. De-escalation means something very different in rules of police conduct.

No, I wouldn't think 6 shots to the head would have de-escalated it. De-escalation means that a resisting (and violent) suspect is booked with no real damage to them or the officers. And in this case, that's what happened. So don't make stupid examples or assumptions.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Tazers also cause injuries short of death, but that is a separate issue. Look at the death stats for precints that didn't use chokeholds (or have since eliminated them) or other weapons and you will find even fewer cases of death than with tazers. And death is a much more important consideration than injury. I'd rather have 50 perps with broken arms (that heal) than 1 dead perp due to tazer.

That's nice. Glad to see you're concerned with the perps. Of course, there's no mention on how many officers you'd like to see injuried, paralized or killed before we can have 1 dead suspect. And that's the problem with your whole argument - you have failed at every turn to consider that there are TWO parties involved (officers and suspects)! And by the time a tazer is out, there's a problem and the chances of a violent physical altercation is already high!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Good luck finding them. I think those would be rather difficult to come by. Even very biased groups like Amnesty International said there were only 103 between 2001 and 2005. Within the last 4 years, tasers have been listed as a "contributing" factor to death only 3 times and not ruled out on 3 others. In short, there has yet to be a case where the taser was the DIRECT cause of death. There are an estimated 100,000 uses of tasers among 6,000 departments in the USA. So while you may accept "70" as the appropriate number, that's probably a gross overestimation.

That's my point - you can't find them and conclude death is a low risk. I'm still confused - where are you getting this no actual cases? Raiders Army's source shows over 70 - why is it an overestimation? If there are no actual deaths caused, my position changes entirely, but I have no idea where you are getting that from. And where are your use numbers coming from. I'm fine changing my opinion if the facts are different, but I have no clue where your facts are different.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Just for comparison's sake, Pepper spray is blamed by the same groups touting the tazer statistics as a contributing factor in about 63 deaths in a similar time period.

My understanding is that pepper spray deaths are due to mis-use. This is not the case with tazers. If I'm wrong on this, I would also oppose the use of pepper spray in instances like the one in the video.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, I wouldn't think 6 shots to the head would have de-escalated it. De-escalation means that a resisting (and violent) suspect is booked with no real damage to them or the officers. And in this case, that's what happened. So don't make stupid examples or assumptions.

Blackie's definition of de-escalation = "resisting (and violent) suspect is booked with no real damage to them or the officers."

So, what if the woman died in the video? Does that change your opinion? My whole point is that based on the information I've seen, excessive use of tasers will increase the death count. While this woman did not die, others will and that is unacceptable if other means were available.

And there were plenty of ways this cop should have acted differently (as I described above).

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's nice. Glad to see you're concerned with the perps. Of course, there's no mention on how many officers you'd like to see injuried, paralized or killed before we can have 1 dead suspect. And that's the problem with your whole argument - you have failed at every turn to consider that there are TWO parties involved (officers and suspects)! And by the time a tazer is out, there's a problem and the chances of a violent physical altercation is already high!

Fuck you again! I've never said I'd like to see "officers . . . injured, paralyzed [sic] or killed." I've always defended a balance and in this case I argued there were 1) other methods available, 2) an incredibly low security risk, and 3) no justification at all for a second tazer use.

As I've said, I'm usually very pro-cop when it comes to restraint and physical force, but the use of weapons changes things entirely. But you obviously don't want to hear that because it is inconsistent with your John-Galt-hates-all-cops-and-secretly-smiles-when-they-die view of me.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's my point - you can't find them and conclude death is a low risk. I'm still confused - where are you getting this no actual cases? Raiders Army's source shows over 70 - why is it an overestimation? If there are no actual deaths caused, my position changes entirely, but I have no idea where you are getting that from. And where are your use numbers coming from. I'm fine changing my opinion if the facts are different, but I have no clue where your facts are different.

Reading comprehension for the win? Look at Raider's post on page one again. He even supplies a link for you. Ultimately, I have yet to find one verified (coroner's report) death where the tazer was the primary factor of the death. I can find a couple where it is stated as a contributing factor.

Originally Posted by John Galt

My understanding is that pepper spray deaths are due to mis-use. This is not the case with tazers. If I'm wrong on this, I would also oppose the use of pepper spray in instances like the one in the video.

What is mis-use of pepper spray? And isn't a death a death? If it can be misused, isn't it dangerous? How would it be different? And take away tazers and pepper spray, then we're down to hand-to-hand combat or shooting them. Yep, those are better choices!

OOH! Guns cause deaths too! Better ban those. So can physical altercations! Better stop that. Car crashes do too! Better take away the cop cars! See how absurd your logic gets?

This isn't a no-risk job, John.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Blackie's definition of de-escalation = "resisting (and violent) suspect is booked with no real damage to them or the officers."

So, what if the woman died in the video? Does that change your opinion? My whole point is that based on the information I've seen, excessive use of tasers will increase the death count. While this woman did not die, others will and that is unacceptable if other means were available.

And there were plenty of ways this cop should have acted differently (as I described above).

What the fuck? THE WOMAN DIDN'T DIE. She didn't even get injured. What if an asteroid fell on the car, crushing the woman? Would it be the officer's fault that they didn't arrest her faster? What if monkeys few out of her butt? What if they used a K-bar and it turned into a lightsaber and cut her head off! What if they use pepper spray and, like the Wicked Witch, she died screaming "I'm melting, I'm melting!"

I suppose you have to play the "what if" game if the facts don't support you.

By the way, you haven't described anything above beyond having the officers getting into a physical altercation with her or letting her decide the terms of her arrest. Gee, great choices!

Originally Posted by John Galt

Fuck you again! I've never said I'd like to see "officers . . . injured, paralyzed [sic] or killed." I've always defended a balance and in this case I argued there were 1) other methods available, 2) an incredibly low security risk, and 3) no justification at all for a second tazer use.

As I've said, I'm usually very pro-cop when it comes to restraint and physical force, but the use of weapons changes things entirely. But you obviously don't want to hear that because it is inconsistent with your John-Galt-hates-all-cops-and-secretly-smiles-when-they-die view of me.

No, you haven't said it. But you never reference officer safety either, which is very easy to interpret that you aren't concerned with officer safety. It's what you don't say that is very telling.

You haven't been able to show in ANY way this was an "incredibly low security risk" AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. I'd say that an uncooperative suspect in a car who is resisting arrest, on the phone calling possible reinforcements and (supposedly) swings at an officer is NOT an incredibly low security risk. It's easy to 2nd guess now, but those are the very simple facts at the time of the incident. I'd hate to see what you define as a high security risk if those factors are somehow a low security risk. In addition, she obviously had a past criminal history for her license to be suspended.

As for the 2nd tazer use, we really can't see what's going on. I think she's on her stomach with her hands under her, given the commands by the officer. They don't know if she's palming a blade, mace or some other item that can be used as a weapon. They can't see her hands. She refuses ("I can't") to put them behind her back. So given the suspect is hostile, resisted arrest and (supposedly) swung at an officer, I'd juice her again too. ZOT!!!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for the 2nd tazer use, we really can't see what's going on. I think she's on her stomach with her hands under her, given the commands by the officer. They don't know if she's palming a blade, mace or some other item that can be used as a weapon. They can't see her hands. She refuses ("I can't") to put them behind her back. So given the suspect is hostile, resisted arrest and (supposedly) swung at an officer, I'd juice her again too. ZOT!!!

I don't think you can make this argument. Once you agree that you can't see what is going on, speculation is pointless. At the very least, the woman is no longer in her car with easy access to any hidden weapon, she is no longer on the phone to potential reinforcements, and the first taser shot should have cleared her hands of anything they may have been holding. She may not be zero risk to the officers, but she must be less of a risk.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I don't think you can make this argument. Once you agree that you can't see what is going on, speculation is pointless. At the very least, the woman is no longer in her car with easy access to any hidden weapon, she is no longer on the phone to potential reinforcements, and the first taser shot should have cleared her hands of anything they may have been holding. She may not be zero risk to the officers, but she must be less of a risk.

You say not to speculate, but then folks claim that the 2nd tazing was unacceptable and unnecessary? That's pure speculation - one that the audio information seems to, in part, refute.

It's very easy to make this argument. I'm going by the available audio information within the video. Now those assumptions may not be correct, but you do the best with the information you can gather.

She may be less of a risk, but that doesn't mean she's not still a risk.

[Bee]

I don't see anything wrong with what the first tazer use (the need for the second shot is inconclusive based on what I could see on the video). So far, no one has put forth a way to resolve the issue that would have been less dangerous to everyone involved and until that's done I think the course of action taken was probably the best.

BTW, I didn't find the video funny, but I don't care much for the "shot to the nuts" type of humor.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Huh? Where are you getting these numbers?

Again, see my post on page one.

Some other info:

Source: hxxp://www.michigantaser.com/Cincinnati%20Article,%20Tasers.pdf

[CamEdwards]

I can't believe that three pages in we haven't all come to the conclusion that

a) the woman should have done what she was told, but because she did not

b) the officer responded to an unknown situation in a non-lethal fashion that

c) resulted in compliance from the suspect.

All of this arguing over the lethality of tasers is ridiculous. There are no true non-lethal weapons, including your fists. Heck, a woman in Boston died after being hit with one of the bean bags that police fire to disperse crowds.

I've watched this video several times and I still think the officers acted very professionally.

I understand John Galt is very concerned with potential human rights abuses by those in a position of authority (which I commend), but in my mind this just doesn't begin to approach an abuse by the officer, nor does it indicate (to me) faulty procedures within the department.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Reading comprehension for the win? Look at Raider's post on page one again.

There are two posts. One is from the Seattle PI that has 70+ deaths. Then there is one from a tazer website that quotes an editorial in the Cinn Enq. The Seattle PI story was run nationally and cites its evidence. The Cinn Enq. editorial gives no sources and just asserts numbers. I'm not willing to rely on undocumented sources with an agenda with no authority.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

What is mis-use of pepper spray? And isn't a death a death? If it can be misused, isn't it dangerous?

My understanding about pepper spray (which is much more limited as I've never worked on a pepper spray case and haven't talked to any cops or victims about pepper spray) is that deaths usually result from shooting the spray directly into the mouth of the victim. There have been very particular cases where this was used to execute someone. So, I'm assuming pepper spray deaths are primarily due to mis-use, but again, it is not an area that I have a lot of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

What the fuck? THE WOMAN DIDN'T DIE. She didn't even get injured. What if an asteroid fell on the car, crushing the woman? Would it be the officer's fault that they didn't arrest her faster? What if monkeys few out of her butt? What if they used a K-bar and it turned into a lightsaber and cut her head off! What if they use pepper spray and, like the Wicked Witch, she died screaming "I'm melting, I'm melting!"

You can't evaluate a police procedure based upon one case. You need to develop procedures based upon all of the cases and scenarios. Just because she didn't die in this case doesn't mean the cop was "right."

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I suppose you have to play the "what if" game if the facts don't support you.

No. I recognize that police brutality is NEVER about 1 case and you always have to look at the broader picture to decide if a given procedure is a good idea.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

By the way, you haven't described anything above beyond having the officers getting into a physical altercation with her or letting her decide the terms of her arrest. Gee, great choices!

And you question my reading comprehension? I described several ways the cop escalated the situation through verbal choices. I also questioned the way he deployed the weapon and the limited time he gave before he used it. He put himself in a situation where physical force or weapon use was becoming increasingly "necessary." A "good" cop would never have ended up in that situation.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, you haven't said it. But you never reference officer safety either, which is very easy to interpret that you aren't concerned with officer safety. It's what you don't say that is very telling.

From my original post: "And cops should learn not to use them because it is easier to do so. If there is no threat of violence (or even just a minor threat), tazing seems excessive to me."

I didn't not believe there was a threat to officer safety (or at least not one that justified tazer use). So, don't say I didn't even "reference officer safety" and then question my reading comprehension.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You haven't been able to show in ANY way this was an "incredibly low security risk" AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. I'd say that an uncooperative suspect in a car who is resisting arrest, on the phone calling possible reinforcements and (supposedly) swings at an officer is NOT an incredibly low security risk. It's easy to 2nd guess now, but those are the very simple facts at the time of the incident..

As I've said, if you watch more video from cop cams, you see police handle these situations in much more effective manners. There are ways to avoid physical force and this cop did not seem that interested in them. And a traffic stop does present a security risk at times, but the first tazer use was certainly enough to satisfy them (and I still believe it wasn't necessary). The second use shows the cop had other things were on their mind.

And it is strange that you accuse me of playing "what if games" when the facts aren't on my side. Yet, you want to ask questions like "what if she had a gun." You can't have it both ways, Blackie. As I said earlier, it is important to consider BOTH sets of hypotheticals - if she died and if she had a gun. Then you determine probabilities and other courses of action that could have been pursued. That is how procedure is made.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'd hate to see what you define as a high security risk if those factors are somehow a low security risk. In addition, she obviously had a past criminal history for her license to be suspended.

As I said, a cop made a lot of the situation higher risk by escalating it. And no, this is far from a high risk scenario. I've seen cops do a fantastic job, without using a tazer or other weapon even when you had felons with weapons in the car. Now, those were exceptional cases and not all cops should be held to that standard, but IMO, this guy was way overzealous.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for the 2nd tazer use, we really can't see what's going on. I think she's on her stomach with her hands under her, given the commands by the officer. They don't know if she's palming a blade, mace or some other item that can be used as a weapon. They can't see her hands. She refuses ("I can't") to put them behind her back. So given the suspect is hostile, resisted arrest and (supposedly) swung at an officer, I'd juice her again too. ZOT!!!

If my memory is right, it is true you can't tell what is going on, but it is hard to see any real security threat. She is muscle spasm with limited motor control. Two cops have a good view of her and there are no signs of a weapon. Saying "what if" it was really well hidden is how you end up with dead perps. I like you take "I can't" to be "refuses." And you think I have ideological blinders on. You claim to be using the audio record but then warp it to your beliefs. There was no reason to believe she was a threat on the ground. Even the so-called swing is nothing to a "good" cop.

And I know you would juice her again and that is why you would make a very bad cop.

[CamEdwards]

I think Blackie's "what if" has more to do with questions the officer has to ask at the time, while your "what if" is more of the typical hypothetical situation/strawman argument.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Again, see my post on page one.

Yeah. I just have no idea where those numbers come from. As I said to Blackie, it is an editorial for a Cinn. Enq. writer. I have no idea where his numbers are coming from or if they are even reliable.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You say not to speculate, but then folks claim that the 2nd tazing was unacceptable and unnecessary? That's pure speculation - one that the audio information seems to, in part, refute.

It's very easy to make this argument. I'm going by the available audio information within the video. Now those assumptions may not be correct, but you do the best with the information you can gather.

She may be less of a risk, but that doesn't mean she's not still a risk.

Of course she is still a risk, everybody is a risk. Notice how I said before that she is not zero risk? I'm just saying that we can't truly comment on the second taser without being able to see it. The officer tells her to roll onto her stomach and she says that she can't. Is she saying she can't becuase she is secretly pulling a knife out of her pocket, or is she saying she can't because she doesn't have full control of her muscles yet? We really can't say, so it is hard to know if the second taser is necessary. If she looks like she is going for a weapon, the second taser might have been more necessary than the first. There are all kinds of possibilities and we just don't know enough.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think Blackie's "what if" has more to do with questions the officer has to ask at the time, while your "what if" is more of the typical hypothetical situation/strawman argument.

In designing police procedures, you have to evaluate the best, worse, and in-between cases. The perp dying from a tazer is certainly a worst case. Similarly, cop being shot is a worst case. You can't evaluate what this cop did without considering both possibilities.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I've watched this video several times and I still think the officers acted very professionally.

I understand John Galt is very concerned with potential human rights abuses by those in a position of authority (which I commend), but in my mind this just doesn't begin to approach an abuse by the officer, nor does it indicate (to me) faulty procedures within the department.

Again, I admit I have to watch the video again. But I definitely think the word "professionally" doesn't apply well (even if the words "proper" or "legal" do). Badmouthing a perp so she can hear is not professional. Refusing to give proper ID is not professional. The cop may have acted legally (something which I doubt), but I just don't think he was professional.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

There are two posts. One is from the Seattle PI that has 70+ deaths. Then there is one from a tazer website that quotes an editorial in the Cinn Enq. The Seattle PI story was run nationally and cites its evidence. The Cinn Enq. editorial gives no sources and just asserts numbers. I'm not willing to rely on undocumented sources with an agenda with no authority.

I have to run to a meeting, so I'll be short. The Seattle PI story really cites no evidence beyond pointing to other figures which again cite no evidence either.

Originally Posted by John Galt

My understanding about pepper spray (which is much more limited as I've never worked on a pepper spray case and haven't talked to any cops or victims about pepper spray) is that deaths usually result from shooting the spray directly into the mouth of the victim. There have been very particular cases where this was used to execute someone. So, I'm assuming pepper spray deaths are primarily due to mis-use, but again, it is not an area that I have a lot of knowledge.

There are supposedly more cases. Asthma-related, usually.

Originally Posted by John Galt

You can't evaluate a police procedure based upon one case. You need to develop procedures based upon all of the cases and scenarios. Just because she didn't die in this case doesn't mean the cop was "right."

True, but it does support that the procedure was correct and the cop was right.

Originally Posted by John Galt

No. I recognize that police brutality is NEVER about 1 case and you always have to look at the broader picture to decide if a given procedure is a good idea.

Good idea. Look at injuries and lives saved from the use of tasers and non-lethal weapons before you respond.

Originally Posted by John Galt

And you question my reading comprehension? I described several ways the cop escalated the situation through verbal choices. I also questioned the way he deployed the weapon and the limited time he gave before he used it. He put himself in a situation where physical force or weapon use was becoming increasingly "necessary." A "good" cop would never have ended up in that situation.

And, by your own admission, you're basing this on faulty assumptions since you haven't seen the video again. The cop never raises his voice until he goes to arrest her and she refuses. He never escalated a thing.

Originally Posted by John Galt

From my original post: "And cops should learn not to use them because it is easier to do so. If there is no threat of violence (or even just a minor threat), tazing seems excessive to me."

I didn't not believe there was a threat to officer safety (or at least not one that justified tazer use). So, don't say I didn't even "reference officer safety" and then question my reading comprehension.

Yet you continue to insist that this is a low-risk situation.

Originally Posted by John Galt

As I've said, if you watch more video from cop cams, you see police handle these situations in much more effective manners. There are ways to avoid physical force and this cop did not seem that interested in them. And a traffic stop does present a security risk at times, but the first tazer use was certainly enough to satisfy them (and I still believe it wasn't necessary). The second use shows the cop had other things were on their mind.

And it is strange that you accuse me of playing "what if games" when the facts aren't on my side. Yet, you want to ask questions like "what if she had a gun." You can't have it both ways, Blackie. As I said earlier, it is important to consider BOTH sets of hypotheticals - if she died and if she had a gun. Then you determine probabilities and other courses of action that could have been pursued. That is how procedure is made.

Difference - you're playing "what if" games post-incident with absurd scenarios. I'm playing "what if" as the officers are in the situation with very real scenarios.

Originally Posted by John Galt

As I said, a cop made a lot of the situation higher risk by escalating it. And no, this is far from a high risk scenario. I've seen cops do a fantastic job, without using a tazer or other weapon even when you had felons with weapons in the car. Now, those were exceptional cases and not all cops should be held to that standard, but IMO, this guy was way overzealous.

Go look at the video again. There's going to be an altercation in this scenario - no doubt about it. That's evident from the way the woman was acting the minute she was pulled over. It's up to you to figure out how he could have arrested her without an altercation.[/quote]

[quote=John Galt]
Even the so-called swing is nothing to a "good" cop.
[\QUOTE]

Go take a swing at a cop and see what happens. Of all your statements, this is by far the most absurd.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

In designing police procedures, you have to evaluate the best, worse, and in-between cases. The perp dying from a tazer is certainly a worst case. Similarly, cop being shot is a worst case. You can't evaluate what this cop did without considering both possibilities.

True. But the officer cetainly gave her the option of avoiding being Tasered. Most criminal suspects do not give the officers they kill the same courtesy. Again, you're failing to take into consideration the actions (or lack thereof) of the suspect and putting all of the blame on the officer.

And honestly, if I'm an officer confronted with this situation, I'm going risk using a weapon that is non-lethal to the vast majority of the population rather than risk a further escalation of an unknown situation. In evaluating both possibilities of worst case scenarios, I can take your number of 70 Taser-related deaths from 2001 to 2004 and compare it to the number of police officers killed in the line of duty during that same time period. Last year there were 156 officers killed in the line of duty. So far this year there have been 59. I would conclude that the risk of an officer being killed in the line of duty is greater than the risk of this woman dying from being Tasered, and I would have acted in the same manner as this officer did.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

True. But the officer cetainly gave her the option of avoiding being Tasered. Most criminal suspects do not give the officers they kill the same courtesy. Again, you're failing to take into consideration the actions (or lack thereof) of the suspect and putting all of the blame on the officer.

No, as I said earlier, I believe the lady was 100% in the wrong. I think she should be tried and sentenced for resisting arrest and would strongly recommend she receive the maximum penalty. I do not believe she did anything "right" in the situation. I make no excuses for her conduct.

However, I believe the lady and the cop could both be 100% wrong in a situation. In this case, I don't think the cop was 100% wrong, but I think his conduct is measured against what is best on the whole. A cop's mission is not just to apprehend perps. There are a lot of other goals and directives regulating their conduct. Circumstances like this one are inevitable and "good" cops need to react accordingly so that you end up with less dead cops and perps. This cop didn't use common sense at times (badmouthing was the prime example) and seemed a little too trigger happy (2nd tazer). As a result, I think he should be reprimanded and sent back for re-training on procedure.

To me, the wrong of the lady is separate and distinct from the wrong of the officer.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

And honestly, if I'm an officer confronted with this situation, I'm going risk using a weapon that is non-lethal to the vast majority of the population rather than risk a further escalation of an unknown situation. In evaluating both possibilities of worst case scenarios, I can take your number of 70 Taser-related deaths from 2001 to 2004 and compare it to the number of police officers killed in the line of duty during that same time period. Last year there were 156 officers killed in the line of duty. So far this year there have been 59. I would conclude that the risk of an officer being killed in the line of duty is greater than the risk of this woman dying from being Tasered, and I would have acted in the same manner as this officer did.

Certainly, the risk of death to officers is high, but look at those numbers. How many deaths were prevented by taser use? I don't know and neither does anyone else until more research is done. Most police deaths, tragically, occur in situations WAY different than this one. The number of deaths from traffic stops is relatively insignificant. And perps like this woman are, unfortunately, all too common. If cops can't handle people like this lady, sooner or later they are going to kill someone. Most cops are wonderful people and the ones I've met are incredibly self-aware. The cop in the video, on the other hand, struck me as a cop destined for a disaster.

[Marmel]

Video was not too funny.

John Galt, now he is making me laugh my ass off.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

What the fuck? THE WOMAN DIDN'T DIE. She didn't even get injured. What if an asteroid fell on the car, crushing the woman? Would it be the officer's fault that they didn't arrest her faster? What if monkeys few out of her butt? What if they used a K-bar and it turned into a lightsaber and cut her head off! What if they use pepper spray and, like the Wicked Witch, she died screaming "I'm melting, I'm melting!"

As someone who is usually defending engineers when they can't see every possible and improbable income and get sued, this cracks me up. It reminds me yet again of our "results based society" where it doesn't matter if it looks like there is minimal negligence- someone died so someone has to pay.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

If cops can't handle people like this lady, sooner or later they are going to kill someone. Most cops are wonderful people and the ones I've met are incredibly self-aware. The cop in the video, on the other hand, struck me as a cop destined for a disaster.

I guess this where you and I part ways. I think the cop did handle this lady and did so quite well.

[rkmsuf]

I love the tazer.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I have to run to a meeting, so I'll be short. The Seattle PI story really cites no evidence beyond pointing to other figures which again cite no evidence either.

OK. I've been doing some research and I've found a few interesting things. First off, I still think the Cinn. Enq. numbers are pure fiction because I couldn't find them anywhere else.

Second, there doesn't seem to be an independent medical study on whether tazers kill. There was a DOJ study that decleared them non-lethal, but it turns out that the primary author was funded by Taser International. So, on the actual medical evidence, it is still up in the air.

Third, the only evidence we have are the cases of reporter research. That is something that isn't wholly reliable. It may overcount due to bad medical knowledge or undercount because cause-of-death stats are really hard to trace.

In the end, I still think given the lack of scientific evidence, but the decent anecdotal evidence, it is best to be cautious in the area. If it turns out that an independent study shows the risk of death is none or EXTREMELY slight, I'd be more in favor of use. However, we are not there yet.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

There are supposedly more cases. Asthma-related, usually.

Interesting. I don't know either way.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

True, but it does support that the procedure was correct and the cop was right.

No, it really doesn't at all. As you said, you can't evaluate these cases totally in hindsight. Procedure has to be created without regard to what happens in one case. Even if 1000s die from tazers (which we don't have evidence of), it wouldn't make 1 cop more right because he tazered someone who didn't die.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Good idea. Look at injuries and lives saved from the use of tasers and non-lethal weapons before you respond.

You too. There are no numbers. And you have to evalute opportunity cost of pursuing other means. This cop escalated the situation. That increases the risk to him and the perp.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And, by your own admission, you're basing this on faulty assumptions since you haven't seen the video again. The cop never raises his voice until he goes to arrest her and she refuses. He never escalated a thing.

I'm not sure which assumptions are faulty, but I admit I need to watch it again.

My comment about verbal stuff was that he clearly was badmouthing her where she could hear. Why the hell would a cop do that? That is just dumb.

And I'm likewise upset that he didn't follow procedure in giving relevant ID info. That tends to make perps rightfully suspicious. No cop should hesitate to instantly give their badge and unit number. Reassurances about appearing in court are not proper procedure.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yet you continue to insist that this is a low-risk situation.

Yes, I do. And you seem to have no clue what a "high-risk" situation looks like. This type of scenario happens EVERYDAY across the country. This is not unusual in the least. This lady was probably a 1 on a scale of 10 in terms of risk. If cops tazered everyone who was belligerent like her, the battery industry would rake in billions. This case was far too common and that's why cops need to be better at handling them than that guy.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Difference - you're playing "what if" games post-incident with absurd scenarios. I'm playing "what if" as the officers are in the situation with very real scenarios.

Absurd scenarios? If the numbers are right that people die from tazers, then what is "absurd?" And as Cam's numbers show, the TOTAL number of cop deaths isn't that high in real numbers. I believe those cop deaths are a serious problem and wouldn't call it an "absurd scenario" for one to die just because only 150 die a year.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Go look at the video again. There's going to be an altercation in this scenario - no doubt about it. That's evident from the way the woman was acting the minute she was pulled over. It's up to you to figure out how he could have arrested her without an altercation.

I described earlier the many ways he contributed to the problem and didn't follow procedure. Cops are always going to have pain-in-the-ass perps, but they all shouldn't be tazered.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Go take a swing at a cop and see what happens. Of all your statements, this is by far the most absurd.

I have to watch the video again to see the swing (if you can see it), but a swing with one hand at an officer behind you while seated is not that big of a threat. You can watch videos of cops restraining 300 lbs guys with brass knuckles without a taser and you will see what I'm talking about. There is a difference in "swings" and threats made. From what I remember, I didn't see her do much, but I'll watch again. And I'm sure she was going to "swing" again when she was writhing on the ground.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Certainly, the risk of death to officers is high, but look at those numbers. How many deaths were prevented by taser use? I don't know and neither does anyone else until more research is done. Most police deaths, tragically, occur in situations WAY different than this one. The number of deaths from traffic stops is relatively insignificant. And perps like this woman are, unfortunately, all too common. If cops can't handle people like this lady, sooner or later they are going to kill someone. Most cops are wonderful people and the ones I've met are incredibly self-aware. The cop in the video, on the other hand, struck me as a cop destined for a disaster.

I did want to point out that most people Tasered probably aren't Tasered during a traffic stop either. But of the officers killed between 2001 and 2004, 237 were shot in the line of duty. That was certainly a possibility that the officer had to consider in this case. Also during that time period, 64 officers died after they were struck by a vehicle (although those numbers don't cite how many were intentionally struck). That's also a factor.

In my mind, and I'm presuming the mind of at least some of those who are disagreeing with you, the officer played it as safely as he could given the circumstances that the suspect put him in.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I did want to point out that most people Tasered probably aren't Tasered during a traffic stop either. But of the officers killed between 2001 and 2004, 237 were shot in the line of duty. That was certainly a possibility that the officer had to consider in this case. Also during that time period, 64 officers died after they were struck by a vehicle (although those numbers don't cite how many were intentionally struck). That's also a factor.

In my mind, and I'm presuming the mind of at least some of those who are disagreeing with you, the officer played it as safely as he could given the circumstances that the suspect put him in.

I certainly think the last thing you said is true (but Blackie seems to say it with a lot of hostility and personal attacks on me). I just think, having worked on these issues, that this scenario is WAY more common than people think and most cops handle it much better. I could be wrong and my sample size of knowledge isn't all that large, but I've just seen so many crazy fact-patterns and seen videos of "good cops" that I think this cop seemed to be doing so many things wrong.

I'm all for cops doing what is best for their safety (and erring on the side of safety), but the second tazer and the unprofessional conduct really make me think that this cop was not thinking at all about his safety and that this is mostly post hoc rationalizations.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I certainly think the last thing you said is true (but Blackie seems to say it with a lot of hostility and personal attacks on me). I just think, having worked on these issues, that this scenario is WAY more common than people think and most cops handle it much better. I could be wrong and my sample size of knowledge isn't all that large, but I've just seen so many crazy fact-patterns and seen videos of "good cops" that I think this cop seemed to be doing so many things wrong.

I'm all for cops doing what is best for their safety (and erring on the side of safety), but the second tazer and the unprofessional conduct really make me think that this cop was not thinking at all about his safety and that this is mostly post hoc rationalizations.

As for the personal attacks John, I'm not the one who said "FUCK YOU AGAIN". Go look in the mirror.

As for a low-risk scenario, you continue to ignore the facts.

1. I'd say that an uncooperative suspect who has been legitimately pulled over who is verbally abusive, up to and including calling the officer a racist
2. A suspect who is acting irrationally.
3. A suspect who refused to comply with simple, non-threatening requests.
4. A suspect who then gets on on the phone calling possible reinforcements .
5. A suspect who resists arrest.
6. A suspect who (supposedly) swings at an officer.

This isn't low risk. But if this isn't enough, consider that this is a suspect who is driving with a suspended (not expired) license. Now we don't know why her license is suspended. But they don't get suspended for trivial shit. Could be she has no insurance. Or too many points. But one *likely* scenario is that she's a DUI suspect - drugs or alcohol. Now consider that when reviewing the above list. It was a low-risk situation when she was pulled over (normal traffic stop). It's not a low risk situation when he zaps her.

I'd make a bad cop? Perhaps. You'll make a horrid attorney.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for the personal attacks John, I'm not the one who said "FUCK YOU AGAIN". Go look in the mirror.

I admit I've personally attacked you. And I did it in retaliation. Maybe its just me, but I consider your frequent attacks on my integrity to be much ruder than profanity. And I didn't used to do personal attacks, but after seeing so much personal crap that posters like you send my way, I got tired of swallowing it.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for a low-risk scenario, you continue to ignore the facts.

No, I don't. You continue to criticize my reading comprehension while you ignore what I've said in response to these things.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

1. I'd say that an uncooperative suspect who has been legitimately pulled over who is verbally abusive, up to and including calling the officer a racist

If a cop had a penny for each time they had been called a racist, they would retire. Also, there is no evidence that a perp calling a cop a racist makes the risk of violence from the perp significantly higher. Most violent incidents occur without such a verbal buildup.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

2. A suspect who is acting irrationally.

You have described most perps in America.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

3. A suspect who refused to comply with simple, non-threatening requests.

Again, this is all too common.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

4. A suspect who then gets on on the phone calling possible reinforcements .

I admit I've never seen this before, but really, "calling possible reinforcements?" Can you stop trying to spin things and be objective. She was on the phone. Does that mean tazers are acceptable whenever a perp is on the phone?

Originally Posted by Blackadar

5. A suspect who resists arrest..

Again, very important. But you seem to ignore what actions the cop did to escalate the situation. A "good" cop wouldn't have ended up in that position without trying various de-escalation techniques first.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

6. A suspect who (supposedly) swings at an officer.

Same as 5.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

This isn't low risk. But if this isn't enough, consider that this is a suspect who is driving with a suspended (not expired) license. Now we don't know why her license is suspended. But they don't get suspended for trivial shit. Could be she has no insurance. Or too many points. But one *likely* scenario is that she's a DUI suspect - drugs or alcohol. Now consider that when reviewing the above list. .

Dude, if you think an "expired license" is a significant risk indicator, then you are totally out to lunch. A court would laugh away that argument. You might want to look at reasons people get their license suspended before dismissing them as not "trivial shit." Some people actually get their license suspended for *gasp* failing to renew their license.

When in the encounter did the cop find out her license was suspended? I can't remember that.

And remember, this situation would have been a lot lower risk if the cop had followed procedure instead of being an ass.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I'd make a bad cop? Perhaps. You'll make a horrid attorney.

Yeah. I'll gladly stake my efforts as an attorney compared to any effort you would make as a cop.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I admit I've personally attacked you. And I did it in retaliation. Maybe its just me, but I consider your frequent attacks on my integrity to be much ruder than profanity. And I didn't used to do personal attacks, but after seeing so much personal crap that posters like you send my way, I got tired of swallowing it.

Must resist urge....

On to the next point.

Originally Posted by John Galt

If a cop had a penny for each time they had been called a racist, they would retire. Also, there is no evidence that a perp calling a cop a racist makes the risk of violence from the perp significantly higher. Most violent incidents occur without such a verbal buildup.


You have described most perps in America.


Again, this is all too common.


I admit I've never seen this before, but really, "calling possible reinforcements?" Can you stop trying to spin things and be objective. She was on the phone. Does that mean tazers are acceptable whenever a perp is on the phone?

You're treating each item as a seperate incident. They're not. They a continued and increasing pattern of abuse and disobedience from the suspect.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Again, very important. But you seem to ignore what actions the cop did to escalate the situation. A "good" cop wouldn't have ended up in that position without trying various de-escalation techniques first.


Same as 5.

Like what? "Go on your way"?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Dude, if you think an "expired license" is a significant risk indicator, then you are totally out to lunch.

More reading comprehension issues. SUSPENDED license, bucko.

Originally Posted by John Galt

A court would laugh away that argument. You might want to look at reasons people get their license suspended before dismissing them as not "trivial shit." Some people actually get their license suspended for *gasp* failing to renew their license.

When in the encounter did the cop find out her license was suspended? I can't remember that.

And remember, this situation would have been a lot lower risk if the cop had followed procedure instead of being an ass.

Laugh away that argument? That was the reason she was arrested!!! Simply put, get off your ass and watch the video again. Until then, stfu because you're arguing points and don't even remember the proper sequences or facts. Once you do, you may choose to delete most of your posts for the last 2 pages since they're filled with inaccuracies. As it is, I'll just respond with "get off your ass and watch the video again" to any points you'd like to make.

As for your attorney days...I'd feel sorry for your clients. Hope you get lots of malpractice insurance.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for your attorney days...I'd feel sorry for your clients. Hope you get lots of malpractice insurance.

And I will watch the video again before replying again, but let me ask, must you continue to add personal digs to your posts at me?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

And I will watch the video again before replying again, but let me ask, must you continue to add personal digs to your posts at me?

Pot, meet kettle

Originally Posted by John Galt

And I know you would juice her again and that is why you would make a very bad cop.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Yeah. I'll gladly stake my efforts as an attorney compared to any effort you would make as a cop.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Fuck you again!

Originally Posted by John Galt

Fuck you too

Originally Posted by John Galt

you have no fuckin' clue

Originally Posted by John Galt

thanks for being a total ass

And to that last one...you're welcome.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Pot, meet kettle













And to that last one...you're welcome.

Again. I NEVER denied making personal attacks, but you will notice that everyone of mine is in response to a personal attack by you against me.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Again. I NEVER denied making personal attacks, but you will notice that everyone of mine is in response to a personal attack by you against me.

No, every one is in response to a perceived personal attack. However, your comments leave little doubt as to your intentions.

Of course, it is easy to predict from this thread that you would be the one to cry "victim".

[rkmsuf]

Is it ok to tazer crazy dude with chainsaw?

[Bee]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Is it ok to tazer crazy dude with chainsaw?

His eyes might pop out...oh wait...

[MJ4H]

Only if you're a bad cop who couldn't de-escalate the situation to head-off his murderous rampage.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, every one is in response to a perceived personal attack. However, your comments leave little doubt as to your intentions.

Of course, it is easy to predict from this thread that you would be the one to cry "victim".

This is what I replied to:

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That you're so biased on things like this that you can't even remember the details of the video correctly. That even your memory gets clouded/corrupted by your ideology.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Of course, there's no mention on how many officers you'd like to see injuried, paralized or killed before we can have 1 dead suspect.

So, you accuse me of having no integrity or intellectual honesty and then you actually say I'd like to see cops killed and I'm not supposed to take it personally? And I won't even go through the number of times you questioned my integrity in the Native American apology thread.

I avoided personal attacks in retaliation for a long time, but your shit has just worn me out. I don't proclaim to be a "victim" - I just proclaim you to be a dick.

[Bee]

Where's SkyDog...shouldn't someone have been banned by now?

[rkmsuf]

get GroundCat in here.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by John Galt

you will notice that everyone of mine is in response to a personal attack by you against me.

Does it really matter? Its the action, not what order it was done in, what are we six years old?

In any case, anyone who disagrees with the cop's action either doesn't mind seeing a cop get maimed (for whatever twisted reason) and/or is a lawyer .

[BrianD]

I think we need a good threadjack. If EA executives were allowed to carry tasers, woult Madden 2006 be a better game? Discuss.