Yea, I just put it the other way around. Either way, you're not gonna live.93coupe wrote:
Don't you go two in the chest, then one in the head?
Yea, I just put it the other way around. Either way, you're not gonna live.93coupe wrote:
Don't you go two in the chest, then one in the head?
Yea, I just put it the other way around. Either way, you're not gonna live.93coupe wrote:
Don't you go two in the chest, then one in the head?
It didn't "work." It teetered on disaster.MinisterofDOOM wrote:I'm with James: the more power we take from the police through silly controversy like this, the less power they have to do what we need them to do when we really need it.
You have to remember, you can't fight irrationality with rationality. It's very easy to say he should have just stepped back and regained control, but how do you know that would have worked? What he did worked.
That's a s*** argument Greg. That's like saying I can't criticize the president if I've never been President.AZhitman wrote:With respect, if you haven't been to Academy, your position is invalid.
Taser is outside the continuum of force for the situation and the wrong tool for that immediate instance. Period.
Minimum force to get the attacker off you and subdued is what IS warranted, and she got it.
A punch is quick, effective, non-lethal, and unlikely to misfire.
He was "sent back" for training to appease the NAACP and people defending someone who desperately needed to be KTFO. Not to prevent future occurrences.
She DID get that close.AZhitman wrote:Not really. It's actually quite valid.MinisterofDOOM wrote: And the argument that someone could have stolen his car or gun is silly. Someone could grab his gun at ANY time.
No LEO lets anyone get that close to them. Ask Mike.
Thanks brothaman!!!Jesda wrote:Oh and happy birthday broseph
And what happened?MinisterofDOOM wrote:She DID get that close.
Then I'm going to lean on your expertise.AZhitman wrote:No, it's not. You're guessing at what is SUPPOSED to be used, PER POLICY, when you haven't read it or been trained on it. Using a Taser would have been inappropriate AND a violation of policy.
That's all. No need to get aggro.
Besides, you can criticize the Prez all day long. You're well-versed in politics.
That's exactly what I was getting at.AZhitman wrote:And what happened?MinisterofDOOM wrote:She DID get that close.
Come on bro, lethal? Its not like she was bleeding, nor did she hit the ground. He popped her in the face just enough to get her to back off.VigorousZX wrote:bullsh*t, the officer should be charged with assault, I think he punched the one girl because the two of them were tall and black.
There was no immediate danger, you guys can throw 1000 variables at this but at the end of the day, 2 little, but tall girls were crossing the street.
A punch is still lethal, although less then a heart stopping tazer... in this scenario a punch would be warranted if the officers balls were attacked.
No human should be treated this way, either mentally sound or retarded, this s*** happens too many times... Im disgusted that everyone here defends the officer, guys like this should lose there job and be replaced by sincere police men.
Problem is the whole system is corrupt, Ive seen hidden video where a white guy couldnt even file a proper police complaint against an officer at multiple police stations.
VigorousZX wrote: I think he punched the one girl because the two of them were tall and black.
Gotta disagree there. Jaywalking is another example of peoples' incredible determination to be stupid necessitating equally stupid-sounding laws.Jesda wrote:Pretty absurd to ticket people for jaywalking, but thats a separate issue.
Well she took it pretty good, her nose could have been jammed in, she could have been knocked out, hit the concrete and have a swollen brain.Jesda wrote:Come on bro, lethal? Its not like she was bleeding, nor did she hit the ground. He popped her in the face just enough to get her to back off.
Heart-stopping taser? They don't do that.
Pretty absurd to ticket people for jaywalking, but thats a separate issue.
That's a dangerous principle to guide the creation of legislation and local ordinances. It makes the assumption that the law itself, because it has been created, is always a product of rational thought and necessity. In reality, the law in a well-established society is too often the product of exaggerated collective fear that creates a false sense of security.MinisterofDOOM wrote:This post reminded me of the awesomely drunk jaywalker I saw last summer when I was in Las Vegas. He didn't-quite-fall across both directions of Las Vegas boulevard, and I'm AMAZED he didn't cause an accident. A couple cars made some pretty impressive stops, no one was rear-ended fortunately. The guy stopped a few times to regain his balance, then continued on each time. Finally, he made it to the other side, stepped up on the sidewalk (still not falling!) and proceeded to crash into and tumble over a waist-high fence. Everyone on both sides of the street for a block was staring at him. I don't recall anyone helping him get back up.
Gotta disagree there. Jaywalking is another example of peoples' incredible determination to be stupid necessitating equally stupid-sounding laws.Jesda wrote:Pretty absurd to ticket people for jaywalking, but thats a separate issue.
If people didn't make it a problem, we wouldn't need laws to "solve" it.
I'm willing to leave the danger of tasers open to debate, but the 17 year old interloper was punched with what appears to be a "correct" amount of force. It was enough to shock her and get her to back away, but she wasn't injured at all. It should never have come to that, but she interfered and pretty much asked for it.VigorousZX wrote:To never j-walk is something Ned Flanders would do.![]()
Well she took it pretty good, her nose could have been jammed in, she could have been knocked out, hit the concrete and have a swollen brain.Jesda wrote:Come on bro, lethal? Its not like she was bleeding, nor did she hit the ground. He popped her in the face just enough to get her to back off.
Heart-stopping taser? They don't do that.
Pretty absurd to ticket people for jaywalking, but thats a separate issue.
If tazers are placed around the heart I believe it can shock the electrical rhythm of your heart and kill you.
happened in my cities airport a few years ago, this guy is dead at the end of the video
youtube watch?v=IPe_hf7aBXM
I tried to word that so it didn't come across that way. I'm simply suggesting that this particular law IS really needed based on my observations. It might have been created for all the wrong reasons, but I believe it is genuinely needed. But jaywalkers are a huge problem in a lot of areas. Just last week some butthead crossed on a don't-walk sign and caused an entire line of cars facing a protected turn arrow to have to wait another full traffic rotation just to get on the freeway. The d!ck is a d!ck. And a cop needs to hand him a ticket. Because nothing else is going to make him stop (well, except getting hit, and that'll go far worse for the poor sap who hits him, which makes an irritating situation even more crappy).Jesda wrote:That's a dangerous principle to guide the creation of legislation and local ordinances. It makes the assumption that the law itself, because it has been created, is always a product of rational thought and necessity. In reality, the law in a well-established society is too often the product of exaggerated collective fear that creates a false sense of security.
So regardless of whether the act of ticketing jaywalkers is practical, its unwise to assume that laws were created out of real need.
93coupe wrote: Hate crime! Kill whitey!
not always.AZ89two4Tsx wrote:Wouldn't one in the head be enough? Lol.
b**** got knocked the f*** out. well not really, but she did take a jab to the chicken hole.AZhitman wrote:And what happened?MinisterofDOOM wrote:She DID get that close.
Oh no not on your listnumbnuts240 wrote:i watched it again, and again, and coupled with my own personal experiences in cities, this is my take. yes, jaywalking is a stupid thing to get cited for, in the suburbs. my bet is that these chicks decided to just cross, probably causing someone to slam on their brakes and honk, while the cop was in the vicinity. in the beginning of the video, you can make out that he's just talking to them, probably decided that a citation was in order after they got lippy. we all know what happens after that.
vigorous, you're an idiot. z abominations and your comments here have garnered a placement by nala and pmq on my list of retards whose opinions mean less than any pile of dog poo in my yard.
i'm brown and they get none of my sympathy. hitting women is one thing. a cop subduing an unruly perp, who happens to be female, is another. what if they started punching him. should he have just stood there, getting pummeled? call for backup and request a female officer? naive vigorous is naive.VigorousZX wrote:maybe hitting women in your household is the norm or punching someone in the face to defend your honour is a way of life, but if I were in this cops shoes I would have tackled her down and used my muscles to subdue her.
By the way, lets not kid our selves, if these girls were white, people would have more sympathy.
VigorousZX wrote:if these girls were white, people would have more sympathy.
