Yes, I do, and no, I do not.
The link provides an audio commentary by a police official concerning pepper spray, FWIW.
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.
Every state in the United States permits driver’s licenses to be suspended as punishment for repeated driving infractions. It’s safe to say that your view, however sincerely held, is in the minority.
From what I understand, she was pulled over for speeding and it was only then that the officer discovered she was driving on a suspended license. It is my view that if he wanted to arrest her, he should have been obliged to get a formal warrant for her arrest. I believe that law enforcement agents should only have the power to arrest without a warrant if the arrestee is posing a clear, imminent risk of harm, such as brandishing a gun and threatening to use it.
Except that you’d preclude criminal penalties, as you’d leave the cops unable to apprehend the lawbreakers without the application of any force at all, short of a gun.
You contradict yourself here, and you really should explain it better or drop your objection to tasering.
That commentary says, in essence, that the concern was that she could continue fighting even after being pepper-sprayed. The commentator notes that during officers’ in-service training, they are pepper-sprayed and are able to fight through it. The taser is more likely to be incapacitating without being fatal.
And then how do they effect that arrest, assuming she resists?
Shouldn’t they also be able to arrest if they witness a crime in progress? That has always been a power held not only by the police, but by the citizenry at large in many places.
So if an officer observes me stealing cash from the local convenience store cash register and strolling out, he has to get a warrant to arrest me? How does he know who I am?
Yes but as far as I am aware there have not been any deaths directly linked to pepper spray. Tasers on the other hand have been linked to a small but substantial number (on the order of 70 or so) deaths. Basically people get shocked and due to a preexisting condition go into cardio-pulminary arrest and die. If pepper spray indeed does have a similar danger of death I would not say the use of tasers in situations like these is unjusitifed. I would be fairly uncomfortable about the police using them due to the extreme pain and would prefer they use pepper spray but the tasers would be justified.
Yes it does, I listed to it and found it to be a pile of steaming bullshit, YMMV.
If they have a valid, lawful warrant, then is the time they can use (non-lethal) force to ensure compliance.
To be honest, I’m undecided about that. I’m inclined to say yes, but only if the crime is a violent felony.
It’s the duty of the store owner or his representative to deal with protecting the store, not the police.
Again, we’ll have to agree to disagree, and again I’ll note that your view is not a good model of current views on police role or practice anywhere in the country.
It looked to be to be a bit excessive. It didn’t look like she was posing a threat in the car, and it looks like they could have wrestled her out of the car and cuffed her without going for tasing.
You lost me a while back…but this, while a logical extension of your position, caught me off guard.
What do you see as the proper role of police? Are they only to intervene in violent offenses? That doesn’t cover a lot in the spectrum of really bad things that can happen to someone. Why would someone agree to fund an organization that can not handle issues as common as theft?
Also, do you find driving to be an inalienable right? Your posts leave me with this impression…but can the government not set whatever standards for proficiency and behavior it deems appropriate on public roads so long as they do not violate constitutional principles?
When they tried, she swung a fist at one of the officers.
Should the officers have to take punches in the face rather than use the taser?
I’m sorry I missed this on preview- I tend to think that just as many people would be upset by this ‘poor woman’ being ‘manhandled’ for a ‘trivial offense’ as are upset by the tazer.
From what i saw, it didn’t appear as though it was the officer that was spoiling for a fight- that woman was not going to go quietly.
Ideally, to be non-existent. Otherwise, to do as little as possible.
Yes.
Preferably, they wouldn’t.
Can they? Yes. Should they? No. If the roads are public, then any citizen should be able to use them.
I’m just waiting for the day when the police stop a cantankerous old coot with a pacemaker.
ybeauf
Obviously if you feel the stop itself is excessive you would necessarily feel that anything following from the stop would be excessive, no?
A general comment.
This woman had been argumentative from the get-go. She accused the officer of racism merely for stopping her. She had shown no willingness to cooperate whatsoever. He asked her to get out of the car and she refused. He warned her four times that he would taser her. Any reasonable person would have complied at that point, even if she felt she was in the right. I have no doubt the officers could have manhandled her and gotten the cuffs on her. Imagine the outcry if that video were shown. Does anyone think she would have submitted meekly?
I have to temper my objection to “jackbooting” with the understanding that the police do an extremely dangerous job that in theory makes it safer for me to live in this society.
I submit that there would have been no way to arrest this woman that would not come under scrutiny from some quarter.
On preview.
Does this mean I can take my doublewide mobile home down a two lane country road at 20 miles an hour, slowing traffic in one direction and bringing it to a halt in the other?
Sure, but be prepared to be liable for any damages, accidents, or slowness of traffic you may cause.