# Tasing the deaf & disabled **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598 "2009-07-28T21:18:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/121 "2009-07-31T20:56:38Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > And I gave a rather thorough answer. You said plenty of people would. If you meant that to say that you would, I admit I misunderstood. So, would you? A yes or no is all that’s needed. > [@](#): > > I also posed a question which you responded to with an invitation to play games, and I declined. OK. I’ve looked at your post carefully. I confess I don’t see one question. Where is it? > [@](#): > > Tell ya what, Contrapuntal: since I am clearly too dull to comprehend what this has to do with the topic, why don’t you spell it out for me, yeah? Believe it or not, I asked the the original question because I wanted to know the answer. That’s it. The relevance to the topic seems obvious. If he had not been unescorted, _none of this would have happened_. So it seems to me that \*whether \*he should have been escorted is pertinent. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/122 "2009-07-31T21:15:23Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Believe it or not, I asked the the original question because I wanted to know the answer. That’s it. The relevance to the topic seems obvious. If he had not been unescorted, _none of this would have happened_. So it seems to me that \*whether \*he should have been escorted is pertinent. So it’s as I suspected: it’s his parents fault that he got pepper sprayed, tasered, arrested, and laughed at while trying to take a dump. Those poor police officers were the _victims_. I knew I shouldn’t have wasted my time on this ridiculous little sidetrack. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/123 "2009-07-31T21:34:25Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I would expect a store manager would act differently than a cop. Put it this way, the store manager could simply just ignore the bathroom bandit for hours if he wanted to, but if the cops were called, they’re not going to just sit around for hours waiting for whoever’s inside to open up. I think the divide here between me and you is that you think both manager and cop should have the same expectations (“Oh its just some guy in there taking a long time, whatever”) but situations in which cops are called are usually not settled so nonchalantly. Manager expects loafer, but cop expects dealer. Can you honestly say cops should not be on guard? No one has made any mention that the officers should not be on their guard. No one. You are arguing against a point that has never been brought up. Isn’t there a term for doing this? > [@](#): > > I dont think they should be expected to accept any more of a risk than you would. Yes, they chose their jobs, but that doesnt mean their right to defense should be lessened, especially since they confront more criminals in a day than you or I in a week. A dangerous professor does not abrogate one’s rights. A sky diver instructor should not except his parachute to be any less well made than one used for emergencies on an airplane Defense is fine. What actions were they defending themselves against? > [@](#): > > Come on, bengal tiger? Lets not let loose the flood of hyperbole now. :rolleyes: > > Cops are usually called to subdue or mediate. Here was some unknown person refusing their orders and actively trying to deny them the ability to figure out what the hell was going on. Maybe they shouldn’t have expected a drug dealer, but just as that may be seen as jumping the gun, so would an expectation of a harmless, mentally challenged deaf guy. The point is that they didnt know, and they had to protect themselves once the guy started pushing back on the door Come again? Not wanting someone to come into the bathroom is now a violent act? Seriously? Not talking is now threatening behaviour? Are you serious? > [@](#): > > And if after, say, 30 mins of door pounding and yelling, he still didnt open it, then what? 30 more minutes? Then more? Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that situation. The cops acted polite and nice for almost an hour with almost no response. Now can they break down the door? Yes, in the abscence of any new information, I would say that after that amount of time trying to ascertain what was going in the bathroom, and who was in there, it would be reasonable to think that the best source of information was, in fact, the person in the bathroom. At that point, I would agree that breaking into the room would be a reasonable course of action. > [@](#): > > Guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think they made enough of an effort barring any unusual circumstances. You’d have to assume that the manager or clerk at least tried to talk to the guy before they called the police, so its not like the police just showed up and communication attempts started right then and there. Add whatever time the store personnel said they tried to get him out, maybe that’ll satisfy you There you go assuming things again. Why would you do that? Why **should** anyone assume things, and then act, knowing that they have very little information about the situation? Do you want your state senators, your president, your neighbors, your co-workers, your banker, your lawyer, _anyone_ to actually make decisions based on assumptions? I don’t, and I don’t want my police officers acting on assumptions either, not when so much hangs in the balance (you know, little things, like life, liberty, etc.) > [@](#): > > Noted. Bad example on my part. But glad to see we’re getting more to your actual complaint. If there was any question as to the veracity of the store personnel, I’m sure the cops would have given the bathroom guy more leeway. But this is one guy in a bathroom, not an anonymous call for police to bust up a house. Theres no reason to doubt the store employees and removing a guy from a bathroom is hardly a serious breach of his rights. The police in this case had all the information they could get and all that they would need to make a move. I disagree. They had all the information they could get _without making any efforts on their own to gather any_. That’s sloppy, shitty police work. > [@](#): > > Based on your answers to others in this thread, you would have wanted them to wait longer and identify themselves over and over. I dont think that would have helped in this situation, considering the deafness and everything. Slipping a badge underneath the door might seem like a good idea, but then again you’ve just given an unknown person a metal disc to throw. You keep harping on this badge thing. They could slip it under the door without relinquishing it, you know. They could have used a business card, which officers do carry. They could have written on a piece of paper “police open up”. There are dozens of ways to communicate, and the police tried 2: knocking and speaking. > [@](#): > > The best information was not available and since nothing else was known, the cops had to have been on guard. I do not believe they would have even pulled out the pepper spray or the taser had the guy simply not tried to push the door back. He did, and shit happened. That was neither the guy’s fault nor the cops, since at that moment of resistance, they had this new information that this unknown guy was actively defying their efforts to defuse the situation. > > I mean, how long should the cops keep assuming he was no threat? What if they broke down the door and he started hurling soap and feces at them? Should the cops hold back because those are harmless objects? Mr. Love was going to get sprayed and tased as soon as he pushed back on the door. That is not his fault and not the cops fault > > Those 2 were meant to be seperate. > > I dont know if cops normally carry business cards but I wouldnt slip a metal badge under the door to some unknown. People have used more benign objects as weapons. **Who knows if the door was even high enough to slip the badge under even?** Well, I know it. You should too, if you had read the stories in the links provided. > [@AL P-R](#): > > At that point, Bagsby said, the officers saw movement from under the door, indicating that there was someone inside. They then shot pepper spray under the door. > [@](#): > > At that point of resistance, I dont think the cops were looking for compliance, they were looking to subdue. Maybe you still wanted them to look for compliance after some guy tries to prevent them from physically coming in, but I believe it was ok to use some force at that point Assumptions and belief… great combo. :rolleyes: Will you acknowledge that a bathroom is unique in the expectations and cultural norms we have set, when compared to other rooms? There is an inherent expectation of privacy, and refusing another person, unknown to you, entrance to a single-person restroom is the norm in our culture. I mean, if this was the stockroom, or the manager’s office, I wouldn’t disagree that they should have forced entry. But it wasn’t; it was a bathroom, with it’s unique function and mores. And as far as Mr. Love knew, he had every right to occupy the restroom. There were many other ways to let Mr. Love know that his time was up other than pepper spraying him and tasing him. NOTE: According to the AL P-R story, Mr. Love was pepper sprayed _before_ officers saw the alleged umbrella. WTF kind of police work is that, if not shitty, sloppy, and unprofessional? How is that not shooting first, getting answers later? I mean, when I know that someone is there and I’m talking but not hearing any response, my first thought isn’t “GOOD GOD! WE’RE ALL IN DANGER! **SHOOT**!”, it’s “Hmmm, can this guy hear me? Can he understand what I’m saying? Can he talk? What’s going on in there?” > [@](#): > > That wasn’t my point. There was no shitty police work done because everything up until they found out his condition seemed by the book. We differ on how much leeway a cop should give. Every chase I’ve seen ends with the cop pulling out his gun and telling the perp to get down on the ground, or tackling him. And this is EVEN after the guy gives up and puts his hands up. They cant assume that suddenly there’s going to be cooperation. Mr. Love resisted, and I’m pretty sure that by the procedures outlined in the police manual (I dont know for sure since I’m not a cop), that gives officers the justification to use force. I’m sure that procedurally it did give them the right to use force, but that doesn’t mean it was the right thing, the prudent thing, or the professional thing to do. In this case, I think the procedures are not necessarily correct, and that the officers acted egregiously and negligently during the inital situation. Their conduct **after** the apprehension of Mr. Love is so poor, so outrageously delinquent, that I am having a hard time believing anyone could defend it (not that you are, **Yog** ; you’ve made it clear you don’t agree with their conduct there). ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/124 "2009-07-31T21:41:20Z")
The link I posted yesterday to the Alabama Press-Register has gone wonky. [This seems to be the new link](http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/deaf_man_tased_pepper_sprayed.html). To read the full story, you have to click on READ MORE OF THIS REPORT after the main body of text. [Found this too:](http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/findings_on_taser_incident_inv.html) > [@AL P-R](#): > > Police spokesman Officer Christopher Levy said one officer involved has been placed on administrative duty pending findings in the case, but he would not identify the officer. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/125 "2009-07-31T21:46:33Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > You said plenty of people would. If you meant that to say that you would, I admit I misunderstood. So, would you? A yes or no is all that’s needed. > > OK. I’ve looked at your post carefully. I confess I don’t see one question. Where is it? > > Believe it or not, I asked the the original question because I wanted to know the answer. That’s it. The relevance to the topic seems obvious. If he had not been unescorted, _none of this would have happened_. So it seems to me that \*whether \*he should have been escorted is pertinent. [Here’s](http://blog.al.com/live/2009/07/police_to_release_results_of_i.html) your answer, and it’s in line with the fact that Mr. Love is an adult human being, not a fucking animal or a prisoner. > [@](#): > > Though Love is hearing impaired and mentally disabled, he has led a very independent life in some respects, his family said. > > His mother, Phyllis Love, said his counselors have encouraged her to let him do more things on his own. He shops on his own, spends his own money and has worked in the gardening department at a local hardware store. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/126 "2009-07-31T22:30:18Z")
**Snowboarder Bo** , your comments in [post #107](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11396994&postcount=107) may not, technically, be over the line in GD, (although it would be a close call), but they are clearly in violation of my remarks in Post #101. Dial it back–a lot. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/127 "2009-08-01T13:18:26Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > So it’s as I suspected: it’s his parents fault that he got pepper sprayed, tasered, arrested, and laughed at while trying to take a dump. Those poor police officers were the _victims_. I never said that, and if you are claiming I did, you are making a claim that is simply untrue. Again, where is that question you said I did not answer? It’s in your own post, right? How hard can it be to point it out? [QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] Here’s your answer, and it’s in line with the fact that Mr. Love is an adult human being, not a fucking animal or a prisoner. [/QUOTE] If you can find anywhere in this thread that I or anyone else claimed he was, I would be greatly obliged. Failing that, why not stick to the facts? My brother works with educable mentally retarded adults and children. He has for thirty some years. Many of his clients need to be escorted in public. They are neither fucking animals nor prisoners. Frankly, I am surprised that you did not know that those are not the only two reasons people might need help getting about. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/128 "2009-08-01T14:08:41Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > Do you recall that I said “where possible”? This is one of those times where it may not be possible. > > No, I don’t recall that. And a search of the thread only shows those words in the post I am replying to, so I’ll go further and state that in fact, you did not say that. So, if I understand you correctly, you did a search, found the phrase in my post, saw it with your own eyes, and you still think I didn’t say it. I am afraid I don’t know how to debate someone who doesn’t believe himself. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/129 "2009-08-01T15:36:47Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > If you can find anywhere in this thread that I or anyone else claimed he was, I would be greatly obliged. Failing that, why not stick to the facts? > > My brother works with educable mentally retarded adults and children. He has for thirty some years. Many of his clients need to be escorted in public. They are neither fucking animals nor prisoners. Frankly, I am surprised that you did not know that those are not the only two reasons people might need help getting about. You seemed to be echoing **Shodan** ’s assertion that he should not legally be allowed in public without an escort. That would make him a prisoner. Or relegate him to a status different from, and less than, an adult with all the same rights that you and I enjoy. That’s what I find objectionable. My cite shows that, in fact, Mr. Love is capable of being in public. His counselor thinks so, his mother and brother think so, and his employment record and lack of any other known police encounters corroborate this. He does not need an escort in public. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/130 "2009-08-01T16:47:27Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > You seemed to be echoing Shodan’s assertion that he should not legally be allowed in public without an escort. I have never made such an assertion. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/131 "2009-08-01T21:55:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I have never made such an assertion. > > Regards, > Shodan Yes you did, in post #105. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/132 "2009-08-02T01:02:07Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > He? Don’t you mean you? I was quoting you. Your original question was ambiguous as to whether you meant that it would be me, or the “_deaf ten year old_” who had “_no idea where he is_”. Since there was no reason to believe that either interpretation was an honest comparison to the story, I thought it better to question before stipulating as you requested/demanded. > [@](#): > > I am beginning to suspect that you are ducking the question because you can see how ridiculous your position is. Incorrect. I am merely avoiding answering a question which mischaracterizes the actual events we are discussing. You refer to him ‘_wandering about_’ (as one might do if they had no idea where they were), and said “_the police had to take him home to his family_” (they didn’t have to… they could have just let him be to begin with). From this I conclude, as **Cisco** did, that you are being deliberately obtuse. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > My cite shows that, in fact, Mr. Love is capable of being in public. His counselor thinks so, his mother and brother think so, and his employment record and lack of any other known police encounters corroborate this. He does not need an escort in public. Obviously none of that compares to the opinion of someone who’s brother works with educable mentally retarded adults and children. Actually, **Contrapuntal** , are you sure that’s really your brother you’re thinking of? …or is it just a nice man who visits you regularly? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/133 "2009-08-02T03:08:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > > > > [@Shodan](#): > > > > > > Do you recall that I said “where possible”? This is one of those times where it may not be possible. > > > > No, I don’t recall that. And a search of the thread only shows those words in the post I am replying to, so I’ll go further and state that in fact, you did not say that. > > So, if I understand you correctly, you did a search, found the phrase in my post, saw it with your own eyes, and you still think I didn’t say it. > > I am afraid I don’t know how to debate someone who doesn’t believe himself. :rolleyes: Shodan’s actual phrase was “to the extent possible.” So Snowboarder is being less than comprehensive in his searches and Shodan is being less than accurate in his claims and both of you are engaged in a meaningless pissing contest that needs to stop, now. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/134 "2009-08-02T04:48:14Z")
The police reacted based on the information they had. It is not normal to spend an hour in a bathroom. It is suspicious behavior that warrants investigation. It’s sad that the person could not hear the police but they had no way of knowing this. They are presented with an uncooperative person which is further suspicious. They were then met with an umbrella which can easily be used as a weapon. Anyone who doubts the lethality of one can place their thumb below their Adam’s apple and apply 1 lb of pressure. An umbrella tip will have 1/3 of the surface area (more lbs per sq in). A mild jab using 10 lbs of pressure is an incapacitating event if not fatal. 10 lbs of pressure is far less than what a child can generate in a thrusting motion. If the police mucked it up after this point then that’s a different story but their initial response was logical and non-lethal. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/135 "2009-08-02T04:51:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Yes, this mentally retarded deaf person needed a babysitter. Because he is deaf, mentally retarded and locked himself in a public restroom for an hour so that no one else could use it. If he had a babysitter, then maybe someone could either be in the restroom with him, or at least would know how to communicate after ten minutes or so “OK, dear, you have been in there long enough. If you still have to go potty for another hour and a half, we can go home and you can sit on the potty there.” Care to back away from this reprehensible little condescension, then, Shodan? ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/136 "2009-08-02T05:27:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The police reacted based on the information they had. It is not normal to spend an hour in a bathroom. It is suspicious behavior that warrants investigation. Absolutely, but did they investigate? No. They attacked. It is inexplicable that so many could be unable to see the difference. > [@](#): > > It’s sad that the person could not hear the police but they had no way of knowing this. They may indeed have had a way of knowing this. They might have been able to figure out who this person was if they had investigated! You know… done their jobs. There was no reason to do anything but investigate until they found out what the situation was that they were dealing with. But at some point (as soon as they arrived, it would seem) they decided to abandon investigation and simply attack without cause. > [@](#): > > They are presented with an uncooperative person which is further suspicious. They were then met with an umbrella which can easily be used as a weapon. Anyone who doubts the lethality of one can place their thumb below their Adam’s apple and apply 1 lb of pressure. An umbrella tip will have 1/3 of the surface area (more lbs per sq in). A mild jab using 10 lbs of pressure is an incapacitating event if not fatal. 10 lbs of pressure is far less than what a child can generate in a thrusting motion. Virtually anything **can** be used as a weapon, that does not mean the police need to use force to defend themselves against the mere presence of every innocuous item. Again… the umbrella is a moronic red herring. If the mere presence of such a thing constitutes a threat, the police must just barricade themselves within the station on every rainy day. > [@](#): > > If the police mucked it up after this point then that’s a different story but their initial response was logical and non-lethal. Incorrect. There is no logical basis for using defencive weapons against a person who is not posing any threat. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/137 "2009-08-02T05:49:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The police reacted based on the information they had. It is not normal to spend an hour in a bathroom. It is suspicious behavior that warrants investigation. It’s sad that the person could not hear the police but they had no way of knowing this. They are presented with an uncooperative person which is further suspicious. They were then met with an umbrella which can easily be used as a weapon. Anyone who doubts the lethality of one can place their thumb below their Adam’s apple and apply 1 lb of pressure. An umbrella tip will have 1/3 of the surface area (more lbs per sq in). A mild jab using 10 lbs of pressure is an incapacitating event if not fatal. 10 lbs of pressure is far less than what a child can generate in a thrusting motion. > > If the police mucked it up after this point then that’s a different story but their initial response was logical and non-lethal. Oh come on, that’s beyond ridicules. You’re telling me he’d have time to aim the umbrella at a small moving target, while setting down no less, and the cops wouldn’t have time to knock the umbrella away or grab it? The mind boggles. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/138 "2009-08-02T05:57:17Z")
> [@NoJustice](#): > > Absolutely, but did they investigate? No. They attacked. They were met with resistance. What do you mean by investigate? Investigate what? Why they are being met with resistance? In order to find out who is in the bathroom and what they are up to they had to break the door down. > [@NoJustice](#): > > The umbrella is a moronic red herring. If you don’t understand how much of a weapon an umbrella is I’m not going to argue the point. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/139 "2009-08-02T06:08:57Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If you don’t understand how much of a weapon an umbrella is I’m not going to argue the point. He does understand. That’s why doesn’t your claim seriously. ---
**Author:** ![NoJustice](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecb155/32.png) [@NoJustice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NoJustice)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598/140 "2009-08-02T06:09:51Z")
> [@](#): > > They were met with resistance. Your equivocation is insulting. The ‘resistance’ they met was not a threat of any kind. > [@](#): > > What do you mean by investigate? Your unwillingness to read the thread for the answer to a question which has been repeatedly asked and answered is tiresome. > [@](#): > > Investigate what? Why they are being met with resistance? In order to find out who is in the bathroom and what they are up to they had to break the door down. Incorrect. > [@](#): > > If you don’t understand how much of a weapon an umbrella is I’m not going to argue the point. An umbrella is only a weapon if it is used as one. To say otherwise makes _ **EVERYTHING** _ a weapon, rendering the word ‘weapon’ completely meaningless. Your continuing equivocation is as clumsy and transparent as it is insulting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tasing-the-deaf-disabled/504598.md?page=8)