Police taser 10 year old.
- Thread starter GodofDisaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Seriously why is this to much on a 10 yo girl, kids can be murders too, and if she really was so unruly that a full grown cop couldn't quiet her and she ever assaulted him, fuck it the ***** had it coming, if I could smack a child like this just once I would do it in a heart beat.
Depends how you define a public space.HG131 said:
Basically, you're disturbing the police if a) You're making an unreasonable amount of noise (that's the 'peace' bit) b) somebody has asked you to stop and you still carry on and then c) that same person needs to ring the police.
As A) wasn't mentioned in the article (it doesn't mention any complaints from neighbours whatsoever) B) clearly didn't happen it's reasonable to state that nobody was disturbing the peace.
She would not and will not because it is not in the public interest. In any case, the officer should not have been there so the case of assault would be weak.HG131 said:
This is a contradiction, if he did not want to hurt her he would have left. Instead he used a lethal weapon on her which causes serious pain, much more than simple restraint would. A taser carries very high voltage that causes your muscles to convulse, the puncture wounds caused by the barbs not only penetrate skin and tissue but also cause serious bruising.
It is not difficult to restrain a child and cause less harm than using a taser.
It quite clearly states that their job is to serve and protect. you obviously don't understand what policing by consent means. Basically we the public agreed to set up a police force to work for the community not the government, it's a constitutional matter that covers oppression.
The police attempt to uphold the law. This officer did not do that. The law does not cover helping parents control unruly children. When the situation was explained he should have told the mother that a domestic issue of an unruly child was not in his jurisdiction to control unless the child posed a serious danger to herself or those around her.
The police have no right to enforce the will of a parent against a child for something as arbitrary as going to bed.
The police have no right to use physical violence against a child just because a parent 'gave permission'.
The police do not have the right to use unreasonable force to detain a suspect.
Yes it is and has resulted in many deaths even to healthy people.
She didn't take a shot from a taser.Kiutu said:
There are two shock delivery methods, and rather then shooting her - where the barbs embed themselves into the skin of the shock recipient, he used it like as stun gun, activating it, then pressing it against her momentarily to zap her. It says that in the article that it seems 90% of the responders didn't read.
What the article fails to mention is how violent the child may have gotten. The mother could have been in fear. What is to say she was not throwing things at the mother. Or the officer for that matter. The article says nothing other then violent, and a kick to the groin. While it does not say anything else was happening it does not say it didn't. Who is to know. I find that the more liberal rags in UK often make the US look poor, violent, and evil as a matter of course. Funny that the more conservative rags in the UK often do the exact opposite.
I side with this being reasonable.
I find it sad that there seems to only be a handful of people that have thought reasonably about this, and even more so that I come to expect it already from those that have.
If the kid was half as bad as the artical explains, then taser away, I say. It's non lethal, so what's all the hubbub. Not like he kept tasering her. If the officer was concerned that using regular force would have resulted in injury, a taser was a fine move.
Serving the people does not mean serving a person, it means the community. He also has a duty of care towards the child and he failed in that.JaredXE said:
The police should not be attacking anyone unless they are a danger to themselves or others. All situations can and should be handled without violence.
Tasers have resulted in the deaths of over 350 people in the US. They are by definition, LETHAL.
She's not a young child. over half of her childhood is over. She is a pre-teen. Only people with illnesses that could cause death when tased should be in that group. Well, them and babies.[/quote]So they should risk havign all her life be over too? Have you seen a large full grown musclar man be tazed? Have you seen their reactions? Anything that does that to such a person I would NEVER think should be done to a child.HG131 said:
I'm student teaching 10-11 year olds. Two of these kids... well I wish someone would taser them when they start 'THROWING SCISSORS ACROSS THE ROOM AT PEOPLE' just because someone is small doesn't mean they can't do lasting damage.
And for all we know she was 5 feet tall and the cop was 5'2"
And for all we know she was 5 feet tall and the cop was 5'2"
