Woman calls police. They brutalize and arrest her.

  • Thread starter Thread starter MTCicero
  • Start date Start date
Spit said:
Again, that was excessive force, tasers should not have widespread use, and I am not defending the cops.....It's just that *something* in this makes me feel that she is not as clean as the wind driven snow.
Click to expand...
Even if she is lying, and the cop knows she is lying, there is no justification for tasering. That's essentially using torture to get information out of her.
 
I didn't expect something like this from YouTube snarker Philip DeFranco.

Warning, this may be triggering.

http://phillydtv.tumblr.com/post/834936503/two-us-police-officers-have-repeatedly-tasered-a

A 57-year-old woman called the police to report a prowler. The above video is from the second squad car to arrive. We see the first responding officer tasing the woman who called them. The second responding officer then assists his comrade; at one point, when they're putting her in the car, asking if she's been maced yet.

One was fired & the other resigned, so that's something. But talk about a chilling effect.

We don't see the woman, but I can make a pretty good educated guess what she looks like.

Apparently, in western Georgia, 911 is worse than a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ-ldcnhsLY
 
WTH?!?!?

What possible justification could there be for the way these police reacted?
 
Labrador Deceiver said:
No he didn't. Hal was talking about different police officers involved in a different situation. Nobody has defended the cops in the OP. They may be along to do so later in the thread, but gonzo's post was nothing but a big pile of stupid.
Click to expand...

Oh, and they've bidden me to tell you to bend over more, as they can't penetrate with the shaft's full length and girth.
 
There's been another thread about this recently. But I can't find it. Maybe the discussion was buried in some only peripherally related thread.
 
The policeman's actions were way over the top, but it might be instructive to identify where the precise point of failure was operationally in this scenario. Possibly some SDMB LEO can help.

Remember the context that there is huge push via various laws that the police must follow in scenarios where the might even be a hint of domestic violence to identify and separate the participants. This legislation was drafted to prevent domestic violence and the police are responsible for enforcing these laws which they take very seriously.

Policeman thinks he's going to what is a probably a domestic dispute of some kind. He gets there and sees there is no evidence of physical violence, and is greeted by what he thinks is a typical "I was angry when I called you, but we've made up, please go away" response from the woman.

What are his duties as a policeman charged with enforcing the aforesaid laws at this point? If the woman tells him to MYOB re the identity of someone he thinks might be the person she was trying to eject from the premises, does he have any duty to go further in acquiring that identity? How far should he go in getting that information. Should he be able to arrest her if she refuses that information?
 
Bookkeeper said:
So the first cop claims he tried to arrest her, pepper-sprayed her, and tazed her to save her from being a potential victim of domestic violence? Sounds like "We had to destroy the village in order to save it".
Click to expand...

That was my first reaction to the summary, too. You think she's a domestic abuse victim and now you're going to brutalize her? Ugh.
 
ivan astikov said:
There wouldn't be a dangerous high speed chase if LEO's didn't panic lowly car thieves into driving in a life-threatening manner.

Unless you have proof that in every instance they'd already been driving dangerously before the police joined in? Thought not.
Click to expand...
Let's recap: you threw in the strawman of high-speed chases (which, of course, had not a damn thing at all to do with this conversation). I then pointed out the glaring difference between a tasing and a high-speed pursuit. You then offered up the pointless dung-nugget above.

Now, since you're in the bottom 1% of this board when it comes to both reading comprehension and brain function, let me try and get this to sink in for you: A girl I cared very deeply for has been in the ground for 20 years now, the result of an overzealous cop pursuing someone who decided not to pull over...because of a broken turn signal. Anyone who thinks I'm always on the side of police is a fucking moron. And anyone who thinks I'm in favor of high-speed chases makes a fucking moron look like a Mensa candidate.

Radio waves travel faster than cars. Pursuit should be used in only the most extreme cases.
 
Kobal2 said:
Sage Rat said:
I don't believe that that's true. The purpose of a taser is to incapacitate a person, not to make them feel pain. The pain is just a side-effect of the method used.

Point in fact, I'm nigh 100% certain that incapacitating a person is the sole intended and prescribed purpose of a taser.
Click to expand...

You would be wrong. From Wiki :

Wikipedia said:
Some Taser models, particularly those used by police departments, also have a "Drive Stun" capability, where the Taser is held against the target without firing the projectiles, and is intended to cause pain without incapacitating the target. "Drive Stun" is "the process of using the EMD weapon [Taser] as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the EMD and placing it against an individual
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
John Robinson was at Wells' house when Murphy pulled up. Robinson told the AJC his friend of 26 years had called him to be with her until the police arrived. Robinson lives 10 miles from Wells and her husband was in McRae, almost 90 miles away.
Click to expand...
A woman calls the police because there is a prowler outside the house, right now, as she is making the call. And her friend from ten miles away gets to her place before the cops do?
 
Here's an article about the situation from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Note that per the article the officer who resigned, Ryan Smith, is now working for the Chattahoochee County Sheriff's office. So despite this incident, another law enforcement agency had no problems hiring him?
 
Stoneburg said:
One can only hope that people who defend abuses of power become victims of it, that is probably the most effective way to rehabilitate them.

I'm not saying that people defending these cops should have their testicles attacked to electrodes, or their anuses penetrated with a nightstick, I'm just saying it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing if that happened...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that I've seen a single post in this thread which said anything like that the cops in question are undoubtedly innocent of wrong-doing.

Say, for example, that Roger uses a salt lick to lure a cow in to be slaughtered. Billy gets up and complains that Roger is a murderer and salt licks are murderous weapons and should be banned. If, at this point, I tell Billy that he has his head up his ass so far calling a salt lick a murderous weapon goes, that's not a defense of Roger. Roger is undoubtedly guilty of killing a cow and, if that's a crime, he should be punished for it. I'm not defending Roger, I'm pointing out that Billy is saying something that is simply divorced from reality and from the issue at hand.

Why go through the effort of correcting Billy if it's not to defend Roger? Because it's a forum devoted to fighting ignorance.
 
Giles said:
Even if she is lying, and the cop knows she is lying, there is no justification for tasering. That's essentially using torture to get information out of her.
Click to expand...

Like nearly ALL the other cops did wrong threads, it boils down to this. When a COP TELLS you to do something, you DO IT. If you don't do, he is pretty much required to FORCE you to comply. To allow otherwise would defeat the very concept of a cop.

She didnt get tazed because she was lying. She got tazed because she ran and was resisting.

DO WHAT the cop says, take a ride ride downtown. Behave yourself. And if you think the whole thing was a crock of shit get hold of a lawyer, or the ACLU, the local paper, or Al Sharpton or something.
 
The goal and intent is still to get the person to submit and allow himself to be restrained. So long as the weapon is used only for that purpose, that's still better than breaking the person's arm.
Click to expand...

I daresay there's a middle being excluded, here ;)
Or did cops make it a habit of breaking suspects' arms (for pain compliance, you see) before the taser came along to solve this outstanding law-enforcement issue ?
 
Kobal2 said:
I daresay there's a middle being excluded, here ;)
Or did cops make it a habit of breaking suspects' arms (for pain compliance, you see) before the taser came along to solve this outstanding law-enforcement issue ?
Click to expand...
I'd venture to guess that the answer is yes. Subduing a person physically is liable to end up in broken arms, missing eyes, bruises, cuts, and even gun shots. Before the taser they had the billy club, their fists, and a gun. Of those four options, which do you want the police to use on you if, for whatever reason, you have decided to fight with them? Sure, the cop might be skilled enough to win 90% of his fights without having to do major damage, but why should he endanger himself like that? Police officer has a wife and kids. He might be in a job where he's going to risk himself on a day-to-day basis, but that doesn't mean that we should make him come home bruised every day rather than tase people who were committing a crime by resisting arrest. And why add that extra 10% of people who suffer major damage rather than using a taser? Between harmless pain and broken arms, pain is better.
 
Back
Top