Crazy Lady, I think we’re on the same side here.
Sir, withdraw the rolleyes *now *or you WILL BE TASED!
Don’t tase me, bro.
And another snarky, dismissive comment.
I don’t remember who it was (it might have even been more than one person over the course of many of these threads), but I remember someone once saying something to the effect of:
In every single one of these kinds of threads, you can always find at least one person who is for the given situation that happened and at least one person who is against the given situation that happened…no matter what the situation is.
Like, even if the cops mowed down a 99 year old man who already had his hands up and was surrendering after being caught weeding his garden too late at night, someone in the thread would be defending the cops.
Consequently, if a guy who killed a houseload of people instigated a firefight with the police and was shot down, someone in the thread would be against the cops actions.
You may think this is an exaggeration, but believe me, I haven’t seen a topic on here yet that disproved it.
It’s just funny what lengths some will go to either be for OR against the police and their actions.
ETA: My opinion of this situation, by the way, is that the police were well within their rights and bounds to tase the guy. The fact that some say they weren’t is what inspired this post.
Why don’t we taser all adults who haven’t been arrested by police? It could be a rite of passage into adulthood.
[quote=“CrazyCatLady, post:20, topic:553084”]
Having been on the nozzle of a 2.5" hoseline blasting away at a fully involved house, its kinda frightening how it takes a few seconds for 250 gallons a minute to start forcing down the fire. Your average garden hose is lucky to manage 15 gallons/minute.
You also tend do approach with your water stream fanned out a bit to block alot of the radiant heat.
A garden hose properly applied can buy you a little time, but we are talking seconds in many cases.
One of my fire academy instructors had quite the writeup in the paper for making entry on a burning house and managing to get a path to someone trapped in a bathroom and drag them out with just a garden hose. Of course he also had 35 years of firefighting experience and was carrying his protective gear and helmet making it alot easier to deal with the heat for a few seconds.
Well, I hadn’t thought of potential harm to nearby structures. My home could burn to the ground and no other homes would be threatened. There was a case a few years ago where a guy in a town near mine was involved in a feud with the chief of the volunteer fire department. When he had a kitchen fire, the VFD showed up and he told them to get the hell of his property. They did, his house burned, and that was that.
I will change my original upset over the tase thing if there were neighboring homes at risk.
A quote from the article cited in the OP:
The fire had in fact already spread: it probably did not start in the house that the guy was hosing down. (And hosing down was probably a good idea, until the firefighters arrived on the scene.)
…by following North Carolina law. In Pennsylvania? :dubious:
I’m waiting for the thread about the guy who got shot and killed in LA while brandishing a knife. Folks are protesting because the cops didn’t tase him. No one will ever win until we have phasers that can be set on stun.
Technically almost everyone who is tasered is innocent since most taserings occur during arrests and nobody has been convicted of any crimes yet. I think undeserved is less inaccurate, although IMO still wrong.
It does not say that. It says they were worried about his safety and told him 3 times to quit. He apparently thought he was doing some good and wanted to continue. He wanted to save his animals.
It really pisses me off that people are saying it was justified. The same people that point out that you shouldn’t use a taser when you wouldn’t use a gun previously. Do you guys really think a cop should shoot a guy to stop him from helping out?
And you know what? Remember that fire when my neighbor was burning old tree limbs, and how I had a neighbor who used her hose to keep the house from catching fire? Well, the siding melted a bit, but nothing caught. I guess she should’ve been arrested, too.
And I still standby my suggestion: in order to keep cops from using tasers unnecessarily, all we need to do is require them to be tased themselves for every time they taze someone else. If it’s truly a situation where tasing is the best option, it should be worth it.
Where has anyone said that you shouldn’t use a Taser unless shooting is justified? The whole point of a Taser is that it is less lethal than a gun (as well as less damaging than a nightstick and suchlike).
But in this case, two houses had already caught fire. And the panicked homeowner was putting himself at risk, and getting in the way, instead of moving aside and letting the professionals deal with it.
So I don’t think the two situations are very analogous.
And if they have to subdue someone with a nightstick, they should be beaten with a nightstick, and if they ever have to shoot someone, they should also be shot.
Come on, this is just moronic. You don’t punish cops for using necessary force with unnecessary force unless you don’t want cops to be able to use necessary force.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not arguing for or against taser use in this specific incident, I have an honest question to start with. I thought that tasers were a less lethal substitute for firearms but subject to the same guide-lines. If a policeman wouldn’t be correct in using his firearm if he didn’t have a taser, then the taser use was incorrect. Is that no longer the rule?
It seems that too many police are using tasers as a lazy shortcut rather then the potentially lethal weapon they can be. I’m sorry, but often the quickest and easiest way to do a job is not always the right way. Even with back-up, I wouldn’t want to have to restrain an irate home-owner who thinks you’re trying to prevent him from trying to save his property; that’s why I’m not a cop. However, if you are a cop, sometimes you have to put yourself at risk of verbal or physical abuse. I’m sure it’s easy to think “Hey,I’ll tase this guy rather then risk a physical confrontation with him.” That doesn’t mean it’s the right choice though.
To me, it come down to the question of “Should I use my firearm or not?” If the answer is yes, then use the taser (if possible) first and the person should be thankful you tried the less lethal alternative first. If the answer is no, then handle the situation the way you would if you didn’t have a taser.
Just a question and my $.02 - DESK