DeletedUser
Depending on how the person moved when he did it, especially after a fight like that, the sudden movement could have been mistaken for the preparation for an attack.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser
Yes, it's nice how the police can always justify brutalizing a suspect.
DeletedUser
That whole thing didn't make any sense to me at all. I know the area well, and I doubt that any deputy or sheriff in that county has ever had to fire a gun at someone before. The entire county has less than 30k people in it, and that town has less than 700. This is the first murder I've ever heard of there. I do believe that the victim and his friends didn't know the guy was a cop since he was in an unmarked car and working undercover... the spokesman hasn't responded yet to the question of whether undercover policemen there are supposed to identify themselves as police under those circumstances.
DeletedUser
Artemis, my problem with that article is that it is taking only one side of the story, that of the friend who was in the car, and who indicated they "goof off like that all the time." Exactly what the other witness saw or heard is not clearly indicated, and the statements of the police officer are also not provided.
I mention once again, journalism is nothing new to me and this article reeks of poor news reporting. It is unethical to provide information in the manner this article does, portraying the story in a one-sided fashion, without substantiating information.
For example: It does not indicate how the friend, who was in the car, was able to see exactly what was going on in the scuffle. It does not clearly indicate what the victim stated, nor when. It does not indicate where the 'other' witness was, his vantage point, nor what specifically he saw or heard. It "projects" what his friend "thinks" the victim was thinking prior to, during, and after the scuffle. It does not indicate whether the police officer put on his siren. It does not clarify how the "badge on the belt" could not have been seen previously. It does not indicate what motivated the victim to turn his back away from the officer (which doesn't sound reasonable even if he was a non-officer). Etc, and so on.
Like i said, this article is very poorly researched and irresponsible.
I mention once again, journalism is nothing new to me and this article reeks of poor news reporting. It is unethical to provide information in the manner this article does, portraying the story in a one-sided fashion, without substantiating information.
For example: It does not indicate how the friend, who was in the car, was able to see exactly what was going on in the scuffle. It does not clearly indicate what the victim stated, nor when. It does not indicate where the 'other' witness was, his vantage point, nor what specifically he saw or heard. It "projects" what his friend "thinks" the victim was thinking prior to, during, and after the scuffle. It does not indicate whether the police officer put on his siren. It does not clarify how the "badge on the belt" could not have been seen previously. It does not indicate what motivated the victim to turn his back away from the officer (which doesn't sound reasonable even if he was a non-officer). Etc, and so on.
Like i said, this article is very poorly researched and irresponsible.
DeletedUser
Artemis, my problem with that article is that it is taking only one side of the story, that of the friend who was in the car, and who indicated they "goof off like that all the time." Exactly what the other witness saw or heard is not clearly indicated, and the statements of the police officer are also not provided.
I mention once again, journalism is nothing new to me and this article reeks of poor news reporting. It is unethical to provide information in the manner this article does, portraying the story in a one-sided fashion, without substantiating information.
For example: It does not indicate how the friend, who was in the car, was able to see exactly what was going on in the scuffle. It does not clearly indicate what the victim stated, nor when. It does not indicate where the 'other' witness was, his vantage point, nor what specifically he saw or heard. It "projects" what his friend "thinks" the victim was thinking prior to, during, and after the scuffle. It does not indicate whether the police officer put on his siren. It does not clarify how the "badge on the belt" could not have been seen previously. It does not indicate what motivated the victim to turn his back away from the officer (which doesn't sound reasonable even if he was a non-officer). Etc, and so on.
Like i said, this article is very poorly researched and irresponsible.
But it's sensational, and will sell newspapers, and get viewers for the Telenewsish show.
DeletedUser
I guess part of the problem is that I've gotten information from other sources, and it's probably not all included in that one article. First, there weren't only 2 witnesses, they just included statements from 2 of them. There were also more than the 2 people in the car, and they had noticed the car following them for quite a while before they got to the apratment complex they were going to. There were also other people who lived in the apartment building where it happened. You may not know what a polo shirt is, but the way they're normally worn would cover the belt - which would keep a badge on it from being immediately visible.
The guy turned his back on the guy because he was continuing what he was doing before being confrontrf; going to a friend's apartment. The deputy didn't use a siren, and hadn't even planned to stop them. He had called for back-up because he was working undercover in the area, but the car stopped before the back up arrived. He just got out and stopped the driver from leaving the scene, but didn't identify himself as police. Several people have said they thought he just panicked and shot, but that's still under investigation.
The one who died had been a wrestler, and he had a few friends in the car with him, so it's understandable if the guy was afraid that he could be in danger; the problem most people have is that he didn't identify himself, didn't give any warning before shooting, and shot an obviously unarmend man several times (2 in the chest and 1 in the side, but 4 shots were fired).
As I said from the beginning, whatever the reasons were for the shooting, if he had been zapped with a taser instead, all people involved would have been better off.
The guy turned his back on the guy because he was continuing what he was doing before being confrontrf; going to a friend's apartment. The deputy didn't use a siren, and hadn't even planned to stop them. He had called for back-up because he was working undercover in the area, but the car stopped before the back up arrived. He just got out and stopped the driver from leaving the scene, but didn't identify himself as police. Several people have said they thought he just panicked and shot, but that's still under investigation.
The one who died had been a wrestler, and he had a few friends in the car with him, so it's understandable if the guy was afraid that he could be in danger; the problem most people have is that he didn't identify himself, didn't give any warning before shooting, and shot an obviously unarmend man several times (2 in the chest and 1 in the side, but 4 shots were fired).
As I said from the beginning, whatever the reasons were for the shooting, if he had been zapped with a taser instead, all people involved would have been better off.
DeletedUser
Pro Tazer
I am pro tazer.
Tazers work wonders on perps who are holding knives (to use one example). The OC spray does not stop a person completly. A person that has been sprayed with OC spray/mace still has the ability to fight and can still injure the public or the police officer. A person that is tazered, is completely immobilized, which makes it safer for the public and/or the officer.
The good that a tazer does, out weighs the VERY slim chance of a person being killed by a tazer.
Also, ask anyone that has been tazered by the police if they deserved it. I am willing to bet that 90% will say they did nothing wrong. Then ask the police if they were justified in using a tazer, and 90% will say yes. The truth is somewhere in there.. depending on who you care to believe.
I am pro tazer.
Tazers work wonders on perps who are holding knives (to use one example). The OC spray does not stop a person completly. A person that has been sprayed with OC spray/mace still has the ability to fight and can still injure the public or the police officer. A person that is tazered, is completely immobilized, which makes it safer for the public and/or the officer.
The good that a tazer does, out weighs the VERY slim chance of a person being killed by a tazer.
Also, ask anyone that has been tazered by the police if they deserved it. I am willing to bet that 90% will say they did nothing wrong. Then ask the police if they were justified in using a tazer, and 90% will say yes. The truth is somewhere in there.. depending on who you care to believe.
DeletedUser
I guess part of the problem is that I've gotten information from other sources, and it's probably not all included in that one article.
So you give us a link to a really crappy news article and then come in later to say OH BY THE WAY.
Great job there, Artemis.
DeletedUser
I for one don't want to see police officers bashed in this thread. Not saying that is what is happening but let's just not go down that path. Most police officers are law abiding, well trained, and care about their community. They do the best they can. Of course there are some bad apples. Sometimes good people just make bad decisions.
Police officers are underpaid and overworked and often have to use equipment that is not as up-to-date as it should be. Every time they go to work they may run into a situation where they get injured or killed. They may have to make a decision that will injure or kill someone. They have to make these decisions in a split second. I know plenty of cops and most of them are wonderful people. A few are asses but that is to be expected.
Police officers are underpaid and overworked and often have to use equipment that is not as up-to-date as it should be. Every time they go to work they may run into a situation where they get injured or killed. They may have to make a decision that will injure or kill someone. They have to make these decisions in a split second. I know plenty of cops and most of them are wonderful people. A few are asses but that is to be expected.
DeletedUser
So you give us a link to a really crappy news article and then come in later to say OH BY THE WAY.
Great job there, Artemis.
I could have just as easily posted about it without including any link, but then you would have complained that I was making unsubstantiated statements and should include a link to a source. That was the official statement that had been released at the time.
I for one don't want to see police officers bashed in this thread. Not saying that is what is happening but let's just not go down that path. Most police officers are law abiding, well trained, and care about their community. They do the best they can. Of course there are some bad apples. Sometimes good people just make bad decisions.
I've had family and friends in law enforcement for years, so I'm definitely not trying to make it look like they're the bad guys. My opinion on why it happened (which, if included with a dollar might buy you a cup of coffee) is that it was a combination of several things. First, the guy was not in uniform and was driving an unmarked car, which wouldn't make it immediately obvious to the "kids" that he was a deputy.
Next, there were 5 guys in their early 20s who appeared to have been drinking, and could possibly be violent (no actual punches were exchanged between the 2 who did have the confrontation, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been later if it had continued). The guys were out goofing around and don't seem to have taken the request too seriously; it's not all that uncommon for someone to try to make a "citizen's arrest" if they see someone doing something that is illegal but not necessarily dangerous.
That area doesn't have a lot of violent crime, and it's possibly the first time that deputy had an altercation like that when he had no back up. Law enforcemnt in small towns is also sometimes a lot more lax than in bigger cities. Once years ago, a friend was stopped by a car (that pulled up next to him and waved him over to the shoulder). When he stopped, a man in a boy scout uniform came up to the car, asked for his license and told him he had used excessive acceleration when leaving town. The guy laughed and asked him if he was trying to earn some badge for his troop - the "boy scout" was an off duty sheriff who was a scout leader and was on his way home from a meeting. It didn't occur to him that he wasn't in the proper uniform and the driver didn't know him, he just assumed he'd know who he was.
It's too late to make a long story short, but to keep it from getting even longer ... I think the deputy had good reason to fear for his safety, but I think he may have over-reacted (or just reacted too quickly). I also believe that he probably assumed they'd know he was a cop and would notice his badge so he didn't identify himself as one. At the same time, I believe that the "victim" didn't realize who the guy was and was protecting himself, but could possibly have handled things differently.
Unfortunately, whether it's understandable how he felt or not, I don't see much (if anything) that would justify repeatedly shooting someone who was obviously unarmed.
DeletedUser
I saw on the news tonight that here in BC, the use of tazers have been given strict rules, such as all officers must be well-practiced in Escalation conflict, it is only used after all other attempts are exhausted, and they must go through regular weapon tests and things like that. It kind of scares me that these rules weren't in place before, however the RCMP, being federal, does not have to follow these rules as of yet, because then the rest of the country would have to follow suit...and that's a bad thing? Sheesh...
DeletedUser
police are evil they know a tazer can kill or couase damge thats why they do it
DeletedUser
police are evil they know a tazer can kill or couase damge thats why they do it
I think this sums up everyone's feelings on the issue and the thread can now be closed!
DeletedUser
you said it bro
DeletedUser
I don't see anything wrong with police having and using them. I'd much rather have a tazer used on me then a gun.
Come on people, if a person does what they are told to do by the police then they don't have anything to worry about. Too many just want to see how far they can push a policeman before they do something. Do what they tell you to do the first time they tell you and you have nothing to worry about.
Come on people, if a person does what they are told to do by the police then they don't have anything to worry about. Too many just want to see how far they can push a policeman before they do something. Do what they tell you to do the first time they tell you and you have nothing to worry about.
DeletedUser
That isn't always true, but it is in most cases. I have mixed feelings on the use of tasers; I would prefer to see someone zapped with a taser than shot with a gun if an officer needs to use one or the other, but I think a taser is more likely to be used when it isn't needed than a gun is because people don't normally think of them as deadly.
DeletedUser
In a dangerous situation, when a suspect is armed, nobody but the suspect really knows what is going to happen, so cops use guns to take them down to prevent innocent people from being hurt. But I think in some cases, like when a suspect is running away, cops aren't shooting to kill, they shoot to prevent the person from getting away so they can arrest them. They'll shoot them in the lower leg or something. Their role is to arrest the suspects and let the law deal with them. If the situation is very dangerous, they have no choice but to protect others, and sometimes the suspect is killed. Yes, they can accidentally hit major ateries when aiming for legs, and the person can bleed out, but that's not generally their goal.
However, with tazers, they can't control a thing. They don't know how a person's system will take the shock, therefore it can be more dangerous because of the unknown variables.
I think tazers are more dangerous for that reason. They know what damage a gun can do. They are told that tazers are safe by manufacturers, but cops don't always know what damage tazers will do.
However, with tazers, they can't control a thing. They don't know how a person's system will take the shock, therefore it can be more dangerous because of the unknown variables.
I think tazers are more dangerous for that reason. They know what damage a gun can do. They are told that tazers are safe by manufacturers, but cops don't always know what damage tazers will do.
DeletedUser
Here in the US police officers are not allowed to use a tazer until they are zapped with one. So, yes, they know what to expect. They are not evil. They are just doing their job. Yes, some can and will do bad things but I dont think the percentage is as bad as press makes it out to be.
DeletedUser
Yes, some can and will do bad things but I dont think the percentage is as bad as press makes it out to be.
Part of the problem there is that it's considered to be newsworthy if something bad happens because of their use, but how many people would want to read in the news that 115 people were zapped with tasers that day and nothing bad happened because of it?
DeletedUser
Part of the problem there is that it's considered to be newsworthy if something bad happens because of their use, but how many people would want to read in the news that 115 people were zapped with tasers that day and nothing bad happened because of it?
Well the manufacturers would love it...
Share: