Quake3World

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:18 am**

I'm trying to convince myself that the woman shouldn't have been tazered, by using a method of sarcastic argument upon myself.

If you read earlier in this thread I was for the tazing. But the more I reflect on it the more it seems like my own personal feeling that she is a "bitch that deserves it" is getting in the way of what should have been done.

So I've been trying to convince myself that it is wrong to think this, by exploring why it is I feel the action was justified just because "the bitch deserved it."

So have I succeeded by making her a subhuman and that "the bitch deserves it" is a law of nature as basic as gravity? Dunno really, I still feel the bitch deserved it, even though it might have been the wrong thing to do.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:21 am**

The above post is not ultra-sarcasm to the next level. Neither is the previous sentence. Neither is the previous sentence. ad infinitum.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:10 am**

it is not an irrational cognition to feel a sense of justice watching her suffer.

But that sense of justice is based on emotions and desires, which can sometimes skew things away from other rational cognitive possibilities, such as:

"that's an excessive amount of physical pain given the fact that she was merely being a dumb uncooperative bitch".

physical pain is pretty serious stuff imo.

btw, even if the pain matched her bitchiness, it would still be wrong of the cop to taser her, if we are within a legal/moral framework of taser usage being a tool of necessity, rather than punishment.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:33 pm**

[xeno]Julios wrote:yourgrandpa:

i think one of the core objections to the incident in question (and incidents like it) is that the function of non-lethal weapons should be an alternative to firearms, not a tool for coercion.

The function of non-lethal weapons should therefore be closely aligned with the function of lethal weapons. That is, to disable a significant threat.

The function of a gun is either to coerce someone into stepping down an aggression (i.e. point gun and threaten to shoot unless perp lets go of hostage), or to directly disable the threat (by shooting at the perp).

The function of a gun is not to coerce someone into mere compliance. You don't see cops threatening people with guns in order to get them to pick up litter, or to stop using drugs in public.

The function of a non-lethal alternative should be similar.

Now legally, the incident may be sound. That is, according to legal definitions, the incident may be valid, or consistent with law (at least on the surface).

The logic might be something like this:

if a person

i) is noncompliant
AND
ii) resists arrest as part of this noncompliance
AND
iii) assaults an officer, or someone else
OR
iv) there is a reasonable chance that the suspect poses an imminent risk to herself, or others

the use of non-lethal weapon is a legal procedure

Now, if we choose to interpret the scene in question as fitting these criteria, then sure - it's legal.

But the whole point of a penetrating discussion is to examine the nature of the situation for what it is, rather than rely on technicalities.

It is hard to take seriously the notion that slapping an officer's hand away when he goes for your phone is assault. If anything, it's a defensive gesture.

Lets do this now. Instead of telling us what the officer shouldn't have done, tell us what he should have done. Then we can tear apart your idea of whats right and come up with three thouand hypothetical situations that could arise from those actions.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 2:40 pm**

hehe yea hypothetical

how bout if the chick was super hot :shwing:

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:45 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:Lets do this now. Instead of telling us what the officer shouldn't have done, tell us what he should have done. Then we can tear apart your idea of whats right and come up with three thouand hypothetical situations that could arise from those actions.

An alternative that didn't involve the use of debilitating pain as a weapon.

Sure, there is a risk involved. As I said earlier, there are always risks. When a police officer approaches a vehicle that's been pulled over for reckless speeding, there is a risk that the driver could pull a fast one and shoot the cop. Yet cops don't pre-empt this potential threat by tasering people. They assess situations first, and act accordingly.

In the case above, the situation was not a high risk one.

btw you haven't responded to the central objection noted in my post: namely that this was a misuse of the taser, given its proper function.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:54 pm**

lol don't bet on it jules; he hasn't even admitted that they can kill people yet, and I've shown proof of that.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:03 pm**

as much as a i found it funny the bitch got tazered, it was kind of shocking to see it used in that situation.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:53 pm**

Jules -

Philosphical question here - but really, do your arguments have substantial legitimacy based on the fact that you've never, ever dealt with a situation remotely similar to this one (as I mentioned in my previous argument). I don't mean to say that your opinions are completely invalidated by a lack of relevant experience - but in situations like this, where the 'right' thing to do is an ambiguous decision at best, one that is based on any number of variables that could change in an instant, shouldn't all your comments really be qualified? (i.e. "I've never been involved in a situation similar to this one, so I can't say with absolute certainty that the officer was or was not justified, BUT, here are my thoughts and opinions on the matter....)

I'm not saying that we cannot make valid observations on situations that we have not experienced ourselves - but a case like this seems to be less black and white, meaning that experience is going to factor into it much more.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:56 pm**

Well I haven't seen the video but in all honesty if a cop asks you to do something and you don't do it you're basicly disobeying an order from a person who's in a position to order you to do something and you're obligated, whether by force or free will to do so. Why the hell should he bother to manualy force her to do something when he can tazer her? Who knows, what she's got, could scratch him and voila Hepititis or worse aids given a bad scenario. So rule of thumb, do what cops tell you to do.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:32 pm**

a bit harsh yes, but she had every opportunity to avoid it. I don't know if the cop was right to go for the tazer at that point, but once he did he made his intentions perfectly clear to her and she made the choice to be a dumbass. sucks to be her.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:54 pm**

[xeno]Julios wrote: An alternative that didn't involve the use of debilitating pain as a weapon.

Sure, there is a risk involved. As I said earlier, there are always risks. When a police officer approaches a vehicle that's been pulled over for reckless speeding, there is a risk that the driver could pull a fast one and shoot the cop. Yet cops don't pre-empt this potential threat by tasering people. They assess situations first, and act accordingly.

In the case above, the situation was not a high risk one.

btw you haven't responded to the central objection noted in my post: namely that this was a misuse of the taser, given its proper function.

Still you've offered nothing but more hypothetical gibberish. The reason the situation was not high risk is because the officers got control of it before things got out of hand.

BTW, I do agree that officers should not taser people as a pre-emptive measure to prevent unkowns. Though we both know that is not what happened here. The lady was resisting arrest and assaulted the officer. The officer knew where this situation was going and put stop to it and everyone walked away uninjured.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:55 pm**

tnf wrote:Jules -

Philosphical question here - but really, do your arguments have substantial legitimacy based on the fact that you've never, ever dealt with a situation remotely similar to this one (as I mentioned in my previous argument).

my argument is based on the premise that the lady did not pose a serious or imminent threat to anyone, and that the use of the taser warning seemed to serve a coercive, rather than defensive/protective function. The actual firing of the taser seemed to be to enforce compliance, even though noncompliance would not result in imminent danger to anyone.

She handed over her license and registration - it wasn't like there was a sign she was about to take off.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:57 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:Still you've offered nothing but more hypothetical gibberish.

Please elaborate. What is so hypothetical about my arguments? They are grounded in the reality of the situation, as i perceived it. You have not once managed to articulate an objection to this perception - instead you continue to say she

i) resisted arrest
ii) assaulted an officer.

I suggest you go back and read my original post to you and come up with a coherent response.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:01 pm**

[xeno]Julios wrote:
my argument is based on the premise that the lady did not pose a serious or imminent threat to anyone, and that the use of the taser warning seemed to serve a coercive, rather than defensive/protective function. The actual firing of the taser seemed to be to enforce compliance, even though noncompliance would not result in imminent danger to anyone.

She handed over her license and registration - it wasn't like there was a sign she was about to take off.

So again I'll ask. What should he have done? I want a chance at this game of 'lets make up hypothetical BS that may never happen'.

It looks like a fun game and you obviously don't need any knowledge or experience on a subject to play

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:06 pm**

What about the gun that was stuffed underneath her leg? Ok, there wasn't one, but who could tell that at the time? Not trying to justify anything, Just saying that anyone can pose a threat at anytime.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:08 pm**

Kracus wrote:...if a cop asks you to do something and you don't do it you're basicly disobeying an order from a person who's in a position to order you to do something and you're obligated...

Police have no right to order a person to do anything. They can compel a person to comply, via persuasive force, court order, etc, but there is no military-style hierarchy of obligation between police and civilians.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:12 pm**

Dave wrote:
Kracus wrote:...if a cop asks you to do something and you don't do it you're basicly disobeying an order from a person who's in a position to order you to do something and you're obligated...
Police have no right to order a person to do anything. They can compel a person to comply, via persuasive force, court order, etc, but there is no military-style hierarchy of obligation between police and civilians.

Someone forgot to inform them of that.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:13 pm**

First off - he shouldn't have initiated the threat of taser at that point in the situation. It wasn't like she was holding a weapon and threatening someone.

she was using a cellphone and refusing to comply with the cop's orders.

So right off, we have the threat of taser to enforce compliance, rather than to act as a defensive/protective measure.

Do you understand this point, and why I see it as wrong in principle?

The cop should have spent more time talking, letting the heat of injured pride wear off a bit.

If she still refused to comply, he could have called for backup. Having 4 cops around your vehicle might make her more cooperative.

If all that fails (which I think is unlikely), then physical force may be used, but it should not be a case of causing severe debilitating pain - rather it should be used to strongly coerce or force her into a submissive position.

I'm sure there are ways of handling situations like this - if they're worried about contracting herpes, then wear gloves and a helmet ffs.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:30 pm**

[xeno]Julios wrote:
tnf wrote:Jules -

Philosphical question here - but really, do your arguments have substantial legitimacy based on the fact that you've never, ever dealt with a situation remotely similar to this one (as I mentioned in my previous argument).
my argument is based on the premise that the lady did not pose a serious or imminent threat to anyone, and that the use of the taser warning seemed to serve a coercive, rather than defensive/protective function. The actual firing of the taser seemed to be to enforce compliance, even though noncompliance would not result in imminent danger to anyone.

She handed over her license and registration - it wasn't like there was a sign she was about to take off.

Yes, I agree your argument is based on that premise. But I'm asking what experience you have to make that premise.

I've pointed out how she could have posed a risk if they tried to remove her (again, a point I don't see us reconciling here - you don't seem to think the risk she would pose, even if she scratched, bit, etc., would warrant a tasering, and you are also assuming she wouldn't drive off.

I look at that situation, and think back to the time I watched the cops show with a pissed off fat lady in a van take off. Then I think of the fat (and small, for that matter) women at the bar who were drunk and irate and the risk that they posed to people who got near them. With those things in mind, I come up with a very different assessment of the situation. But I can't say it is, without a doubt, the right one....

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:35 pm**

You're also relying on comparing drunk women to a sober one for a big part of your argument.

Edit: And you're also saying it would be okay for police to base their actions on what they see suspects doing on COPS.
Meaning they should treat every traffic stop like there's a high risk of fleeing, or the suspect being loaded up on pcp, just because anything's possible.

Which is just a tiny step away from what I was saying earlier about treating civilians as 'the enemy.'

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:01 pm**

R00k wrote:You're also relying on comparing drunk women to a sober one for a big part of your argument.

Edit: And you're also saying it would be okay for police to base their actions on what they see suspects doing on COPS.
Meaning they should treat every traffic stop like there's a high risk of fleeing, or the suspect being loaded up on pcp, just because anything's possible.

Which is just a tiny step away from what I was saying earlier about treating civilians as 'the enemy.'

No. Irate woman. Drunk, irate, out of control, in many cases the difference is neglible.

And cops always base their actions on past events and videos of bad incidents. It's part of police training - watch a situation that went bad and train to prevent it. So, when a woman is this irate, out of control, disobeying SIMPLE orders, they may be prone to thinking that this person is not going to 'go along quietly' and thus act preventatively.

This person did NOTHING to lead the police to believe that she would have not posed a threat to them had they attempted to detain her physically. Nor did she act in a manner that eliminated the possibility of her taking off. She acted in the opposite manner.

This debate is going nowhere. You and jules believe that she posed no risk, or that cops should just accept the risk of bodily harm when apprehending an unwilling suspect as part of their job and therefore not act in a preventative fashion if it would involve potential harm to the suspect (again, who is being an uncooperative, belligerent ass that will not follow SIMPLE orders and could have prevented the situation entirely by simply listening and doing as she was told) - in a sense allowing the suspect to dictate the terms of the negotiation and situation.
Others believe that this woman does pose a risk. We base that decision off of a variety of factors (I've mentioned mine repeatedly and I think there is plenty of justification for comparing this woman to a drunk woman in terms of rational behavior).

Its a stalemate.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:02 pm**

tnf wrote: Yes, I agree your argument is based on that premise. But I'm asking what experience you have to make that premise.

I've pointed out how she could have posed a risk if they tried to remove her (again, a point I don't see us reconciling here - you don't seem to think the risk she would pose, even if she scratched, bit, etc., would warrant a tasering, and you are also assuming she wouldn't drive off.

Our opinion, based on experience or innate ability to judge a situation a priori, in the end doesn't really matter.

What matters is the policy, written up in the handbooks of police departments throughout the nation, of what should be done in a situation like this.

Specifically, what is the policy that this officer followed or did not follow on the use of tazers? Does his department's written policy allow for the use of tazers in a situation like this, or not? For instance, if policy requires that a person pose a significant risk of injury to the police officer in order to use a tazer, then perhaps it can be argued that in this situation the police officer was not right in his use of a tazer. But perhaps this department's policy allows for an officer, upon confronting a person who is not obeying his or her orders, to use a tazer at his or her discretion. Then we could see that the officer was within his "right" to use a tazer in this situation.

At lot of the discussion here could be cleared up pretty quickly if we could know what this policy is. Then we could know whether or not the officer, in this instance, was in fact correct in his use of a tazer, based off of this policy. And we could also, then, argue about the policy itself, whether it is too vague or too limiting, etc.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:36 pm**

Lets clear this up then. After a breif review of internet sites, I've come to the conclusion that taser policies are quite lax. There seems to be a policy change being considered that will ban the use of tasers on children under 15, women that are visibly pregnant and elderly people in poor health. So the way it looks now, this officer was well within his rights to use the taser.

Posted: **Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:48 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:Lets clear this up then. After a breif review of internet sites, I've come to the conclusion that taser policies are quite lax. There seems to be a policy change being considered that will ban the use of tasers on children under 15, women that are visibly pregnant and elderly people in poor health. So the way it looks now, this officer was well within his rights to use the taser.

Well, if that's the case, a lot of this discussion can be cleared up.

Tazering is a pretty new technology, and it still needs to mature.

Policy started off as lax and pretty open, as tazers were seen as a good substitute for guns, batons, and physical confrontation that could pose an injurious threat to an officer.

But recent evidence that tazering can kill and cause more than temporary harm to an individual, along with the backlash of critics who see it being overused and a unnecessary tool in nonviolent situations, means that policy will have to be refined and made to deal with these issues.

Police departments are more than aware of their highly public image in society. The Rodney King incident showed that police brutality will have disasterous, reactionary results. The fact that police cars are equipped with cameras helps to dispell this myth that police are out there just to kick some civilian ass. There is a process of inquiry when it seems a police officer has stepped over the line. Etc etc.

Quake3World

Ha I love it