Police confuse speech impediment for "disrespect" - Tasered teen
- Thread starter sb666
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Both sides of the story are in the second link. Truthfully I really believe the incident report more than the lawsuit. It sounds too much like a play on his disabilities every 10 seconds for the first one. Feels to be written by a lawyer looking to make it an easy case. The accident report on the other had had to be written right away. Dumb ticket....Yes. Was it their job to give the ticket? Yes. Still, Within their rights of the job.CM156 said:
I think police in Australia are better than those in the USA, probably because they don't get shot at as often. But police in general are untrained and kind of hopeless. They have no idea (becaose of no effective training) how to handle a situation without loosing their cool and going all medival on people.
Swear at a cop and they go batshit and want to kill you. They get antagonistic and accusatory very quickly and easily. You can't trust anyone that weak minded and with that little personal integrity in a position of authority.
Swear at a cop and they go batshit and want to kill you. They get antagonistic and accusatory very quickly and easily. You can't trust anyone that weak minded and with that little personal integrity in a position of authority.
Ah ha. That second link wasn't in the OP when I posted. I admit that I didn't search for more information. Thank you.Sober Thal said:
EDIT - And no, I don't run from the police or physically harm them, but I do keep talking to a minimum and, as it says in my footnote, it seems to others like I'm "gawking" at them, which may be seen as disrespect.
True, however it's a pretty big leap from Kid on Bike to Adult in Motor Vehicle, I still believe their response was grossly excessive.crudus said:
Reading the article it seems that the police over-reacted but that the officer didn't just kick the crap out of him for no purpose. The handicapped guy was 6ft and apparently tried to hit the officer. Whether this is true not is debatable but it would make sense to give the coppers a bit a leniency until there's some more evidence.evilneko said:
Taser in the back. Guess what, he's not causing direct and immediate harm to the police officer. A Taser is designed to replace a firearm as a less lethal weapon. It's not something you're supposed to use all the damn time. It's not a first stop. You don't shoot a man in the back when he's fleeing you.
That still makes the cops wrong in this situation.
That still makes the cops wrong in this situation.
This is surprisingly common when they are dealing with mentally handicapped individuals.
I'm not allowed to get into any specifics on individual clients, but the alleged training the police get for dealing with them is awful and needs to be reworked from the ground up.
I'm not allowed to get into any specifics on individual clients, but the alleged training the police get for dealing with them is awful and needs to be reworked from the ground up.
While I firmly believe that the treatment the kid received was more than excessive, I would rather like to hear the cops side of the story, but the treatment the kid got did seem to go above and beyond what was called for in that situation. I think at the very least the cops involved should be suspended pending a full inquiry.
Hmm, i have to say, i haven't thought about it that way. I guess you're right: as bad as this is, it could have been a lot worse.DarkRyter said:
If this is the complete story, then it's a clear abuse of power (not sure if the ADA is like our old DDA, but if so there might be grounds for prejudice).
It sounds like small town fare (I once got a punch thrown to my face in Melton by a cop without warning because "I was in his way") but Dayton's far froma small town.
Guess it'll all come out in the wash.
It sounds like small town fare (I once got a punch thrown to my face in Melton by a cop without warning because "I was in his way") but Dayton's far froma small town.
Guess it'll all come out in the wash.
If they thought the boy was trying to escape and tasered him, while it would have been over dramatic, I could understand. But really, beating, pepper spraying, calling for back up when the kid just swore and turned away? WHAT LE FUCK?
There's no reason a bicycle citation should have escalated like that. The cop should have just filled out the form and put it in the mailbox or slapped it on the door. Cops should be above getting angry and violent when people disrespect them, it's their job to keep the peace. I know it's a lot to ask for them to have a thick skin like that, but if they can't then people will get hurt needlessly, and then the police would have failed in their purpose.
We've heard the parent's story, and it holds water. Now look at it from the cop's perspective:solidsnake101023 said:
Man on bike. Yes, man--kid was bigger than I am, and didn't have his age tattooed on his head, now did he? Going the wrong way, then hops up on the sidewalk. Cop's thinking, "I need to let this guy know not to do that. I'm so sick of responding to injured cyclist calls because they didn't follow the rules."
He calls out to this man... who bolts. Suddenly, the cop is thinking, "What the hell? Is he carrying something? Drugs? A weapon?" Sorry, but when you run from a cop, you give him reason to chase. So the cop pursues.
Next, this guy is running into a house. I don't know if you've ever known a cop, or participated in any training, but there's one pretty universal concept that is taught: You have no idea what this man is reaching for. That's why the whole "put your hands up!" thing.
Most of the time someone is "wrongfully" tased, sprayed, or worse, shot, it's because they were reaching into a vehicle or pocket or bag when the cop was telling them to stop. Think about it from the cop's perspective. How long would it take this person to pull out a weapon and hurt someone? Shorter than it would take the cop to think about how long it would take to think about it. Then this guy turns and starts yelling at the cop, having already demonstrated his willingness to resist.
That's why he tased the guy. He was running into his house. For what? A weapon? Back-up? Then, because he couldn't get it unlocked fast enough, he turns on the cop in a non-peaceful manner. So he attempted to use one of his non-lethals.
Then someone else opens the door and pulls the guy in! Great, now there's two of them. And then three! Three yelling people coming at you.
----
Now, yes, the kid was mentally handicapped. How did the cop know that? Yeah, he was technically a kid. Again, not to appearances, so how would the cop know? Yeah, he ran home to his mom, but the cop doesn't have a damned birth certificate. The cop was acting on the information he had available.
Sure, the mom says she tried to "explain." While fighting the officer. Have you ever been in a fight? Ever try to have a conversation, in which someone gives you information to remember, while you're fighting them? Ridiculous.
So, yes, the cop was mistaken. But not maliciously. He didn't wake up in the morning and say, "Well, time to go beat up a crippled kid. Ooh, and a bicycler."
And the mother and friend did escalate the situation, to the point that the cop had to use a baton to get things under control. Again, not maliciously. She didn't wake up in the morning and say, "Well, time to go resist arrest. Ooh, and endanger my son."
The cop was working with understandably incomplete information. The mom just wasn't thinking straight, and she acted out of maternal panic. Neither of them was doing it intentionally.
I could rant on this topic all day, I have reviewed and looked into MANY such cases as this one and believe this stems from inadequate training, abusive personalities that gravitate to positions of authority and the governments willingness to turn the police force into a para-military branch. If you wish to learn more about all of this, just take some time out of your day to research how the police are being trained for yourself... it is all 'fear for your life' orientated that quickly puts the police officer into a mind that the citizens are the enemy....
So I will focus more on the topic at hand: The user of tasers by the police force.
The largest problem with tasers is the fact they are advertised as non-lethal deterrents. Due to the inadequate nature of the training surrounding this tool, and the under-playing of cases where they are lethal as somehow 'bizarre accidents,' is leading to a police force that does not question the use of tasers in normal situations. More and more officers believe this it is justified to use a taster for a wider range of users, including forcing non-violent individuals to comply with an order.
That above one, by the way, is one definition of torture.
The correct term for a taser is less-then-lethal, not this ridiculous catch phrase of 'non-lethal.' Less then lethal means that it has less chance of killing someone over other lethal methods. It is still, in itself, a lethal option and is meant to be treated as one with all the same rules and regulations in place to protect innocent people from gun crazy police officers.
Tasers are only meant to be used in situations where the only other option is to use a firearm!
So if you read about case where the police taser someone, immediately ask if the person tasered deserves to be shot dead. Not just if the person dies, but every time a taser is used ask yourself this question. Does this case complies with the rules and regulations about lethal use of force.
Most times the answer is no!
So I will focus more on the topic at hand: The user of tasers by the police force.
The largest problem with tasers is the fact they are advertised as non-lethal deterrents. Due to the inadequate nature of the training surrounding this tool, and the under-playing of cases where they are lethal as somehow 'bizarre accidents,' is leading to a police force that does not question the use of tasers in normal situations. More and more officers believe this it is justified to use a taster for a wider range of users, including forcing non-violent individuals to comply with an order.
That above one, by the way, is one definition of torture.
The correct term for a taser is less-then-lethal, not this ridiculous catch phrase of 'non-lethal.' Less then lethal means that it has less chance of killing someone over other lethal methods. It is still, in itself, a lethal option and is meant to be treated as one with all the same rules and regulations in place to protect innocent people from gun crazy police officers.
Tasers are only meant to be used in situations where the only other option is to use a firearm!
So if you read about case where the police taser someone, immediately ask if the person tasered deserves to be shot dead. Not just if the person dies, but every time a taser is used ask yourself this question. Does this case complies with the rules and regulations about lethal use of force.
Most times the answer is no!