blisteringsilence wrote:
It doesn't matter. He is a lethal threat. He had an edged weapon, and was ignoring police orders to halt.
Actually, since neither of us knows the details, we're both engaging in speculation based on a story being related to us second-hand by the OP. That said...
blisteringsilence wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data.
You are absolutely correct sir.
Amnesty International article on police taser use.In that article are sections focusing on taser use in general including concerns about potential lethality even when they're used "properly" and also discussion of six different states where tasers were used as pain compliance gainst restrained, immobile or physically non-threatening subjects. Included are the cases I previously mentioned from Portland of the elderly woman who was drive-stunned three times while being held down on the ground and the case where a man told to leave the scene of an arrest was tasered in the back and then drive-stunned about ten times while pinned down by several officers after he began walking away.
Oh and then there's pepper spray.
Officers Kruger and Hanousek of the Portland police, repeatedly pepper-spraying a woman pinned up against a newspaper machine and smiling the whole time.Four women engaged in a non-violent sit down protest get pepper spray swabbed directly into their eyes by police officers, who record the entire thing on video apparently believing no one would care.
link As a result of this incident, the federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that it was an unconstitutional use of force on the part of police and placed limitations on its use. Similar incidents where police have used this tactic on non-violent protestors are numerous and documentation of same is easily found with a quick google.
blisteringsilence wrote:
Now, my truism applies just as well to me. Does that mean that all uses of a tazer are situations that would have resulted in someone being shot? Nope. I know that the guys in the jail use tazers instead of pepper spray becuase they're 1. more threatening, and 2. make less of a mess.
You forgot: 3. none of the other officers are going to say anything about it to anyone of consequence, which brings me to...
blisteringsilence wrote:
I'm not excusing the actions of all police officers. There are without a doubt those that get out of line, abuse their authority. However, I'd like you to step over to the other side of the blue line for a second. What do you think its like to be between environmental protesters and what they're protesting? You're doing your job, and they're hurling insults, feeces, rocks, molotov cocktails, and who knows what else at you. Are you what they're protesting? Nope. But since you're the only thing they can take their anger out on, they do it, and its maddening.
I'd suggest taking a look over the last few big incidents of protests where police used force against protestors. In Oakland, California on April 7th, protestors were hit with beanbag and baton rounds. In many cases they were shot in the back while fleeing and one woman was shot in the face while sitting on the ground. Video showed the officers discharging baton rounds directly at individual people even though the manufacturer's instructions (ironically found on the discarded casings of the rounds later picked up by protestors) clearly state that doing so may result in "serious injury and/or death". Claims that the protestors initiated it by throwing rocks and iron bolts were never substantiated. Similar justification was used for police force against protestors in Portland during the August 22, 2002 demonstration even though video later surfaced of police simply deciding to resort to CS, pepper spray and stingballs to disperse the crowd rather than to quell violent action. The problem is not just those that abuse their authority, it's the enablers that keep saying "Oh you don't know what it's like". It's the "blue line" you mentioned that causes police to close ranks against anyone who tries to take one of their own to task for abusing their authority. It's the hysterical stories that paint protestors as wild-eyed bomb-throwers in order to justify use of force. On
this side of the blue line, after seeing the same cops engage in the same actions over and over again and seeing them defended by the entire department and even the entire law enforcement community, I've got shit worth of sympathy for them.
blisteringsilence wrote:
I don't blame officers for firing beanbag rounds into threatening crowds. As soon as the first rock is thrown, I think it's justified.
Except the problem is that the police are resorting to using less-than-lethals on non-threatening crowds and then falsifying pretext afterwards.
blisteringsilence wrote:
I miss the days of nonviolent protests. You want to know why the movements at large conferences are ignored? No one cares about the plight of the folks involved. Joe Public looks at the protestors fleeing from the cops after they overturn a car or set something on fire, and think, man, what a bunch of wackjobs.
That's because Joe Public mostly sees carefully edited footage that makes it to the news and hears commentary mainly in line with the official police version. You should have seen it on 8-22-02, nearly every news channel repeated the "protestors pushed over barricades and assaulted police" line, even though it didn't even remotely square with actual footage of that entire day. Clips of protestors "jumping on the hoods of police cars" was actually cut footage; unedited it showed the police cruisers driving
into groups of protestors who then had the choice of either going on the hood or going under the wheels. Stuff like that didn't make the six o' clock news except on channel 12, whom the police apparently pushed too far by pepper-spraying their reporter and cameraman on the scene. The rest of the networks faithfully parroted the official story for Joe Public's consumption. They know that if they cast the police in too negative of a light, they miss out on stories that the police will give to other rival networks. These ARE the days of nonviolent protests; at best their attendance is lowballed by the media, at worst they're painted as violent nihilists so Joe Public's delicate sensibilities don't get upset by the sight of a 110-pound teenager lying on the ground with a 200+ pound cop's knee on the back of his head.
blisteringsilence wrote:
Dude, you've obviously never sat through a shooting review board. There's nothing rubber stamp about it. And again, you can toss anecdotes at me all you want, and for every one you use, I'll have a positive one to toss back.
No, I haven't sat through a shooting review board. I have followed three different recent cases where local police used deadly force against unarmed suspects. In each case the suspect was killed, in each case the review board found the shooting to be justified. I'm sure the process is involved and exhausting but I honestly can't recall with any clarity the last time an officer was found to have wrongly used deadly force.
blisteringsilence wrote:
As far as pain control devices, I would argue that both pepper spray and tazers are better than the alternatives. Beanbag guns, batons, these weapons cause long lasting damage, both cosmetic and underlying. And I would never use "its a learning process" to excuse wrongdoing. Explain it, not excuse it. The whole of human history is filled with excesses that lead to a mean. This is yet another example.
Yes, I'm sure it's better than a poke in the eye with a dirty stick. But essentially what you're saying is, "Sure you got beat with a club but it could have been worse, they could have sodomized you with it too". This is the modern version of the old phone book trick: hurt 'em, but don't leave any marks that can prove you did anything. And no, you haven't used "it's a learning process" to excuse wrongdoing. You've used the same old "everybody's against the cops, they don't know what it's really like" routine to do that. Just like I don't have to fly to know the sky is blue, I don't have to be a cop to know drive-stunning someone for mouthing off and walking away is wrong. I don't have to be a cop to know shooting a fleeing non-violent subject in the back or a seated person in the face with cylinders of wood delivering 90 foot-pounds of force is wrong. I definitley don't need to be a cop to know that protecting and defending someone who abuses their authority just because they wear the same uniform as me is flat-out wrong. Until the law enforcement community figures out that they're supposed to be protecting and serving everybody, not just the people they think are worthy of protection and service, I have zero respect for them.
I'll now end this hijack and return you all to your previously scheduled thread, all ready in progress.
