You know sometimes opinions are just opinions and they’re not wrong *or *right.
I don’t know, you’ll have to ask the old hag who decided she was above the law, resisted arrest, announced her attention to flee the scene, failed to comply, and dared an officer to hit her with a taser if it was worth it.
I still think she should have been given a field sobriety test. Rational people do not act that way over signing a speeding ticket.
Like someone said earlier, I’ll bet next time she shuts her mouth and signs her ticket. At that point she can either pay her fine or argue about it in the place where she’s supposed to - in court.
The only reason cops try to avoid high speed chases is that it puts cops and innocent bystanders at risk. Tasers (and billy clubs etc.) only hurt the person who they are trying to arrest. Since this cop knew who she was, he could go to her house with a warrant and arrest her, using the taser, or whatever other technique was necessary to make the arrest, without endangering others.
There’s no difference between arresting her on the side of the road and arresting her at her house. Well, there is a difference, at her house she could pull out a shotgun, or you could be stuck dealing with her angry husband/son/grandson/neighbor, instead of just dealing with one unarmed old lady.
Funny I didn’t hear any of that when it was just my opinion, and not Bieze’s superiors’.
I was referring to the officer threatening to use the taser.
If it’s needed, use it. Remember, it’s a defencive weapon… not a tool to enforce compliance for the convenience of the officer (sorry Brown Eyed Girl expediency doesn’t trump the rights of the accused) If there’s no threat, don’t use it, and don’t bring it up. There’s absolutely nothing to be gained from these ‘multiple warnings’. He was trying to intimidate her, and it backfired. He didn’t use the taser because it was needed. There was no threat. He used the taser because he had threatened to, hoping she would back down, and she didn’t. At that point the chances of resolving the confrontation peacefully dropped to zero. His mistake.
Then you expect wrong. Why does the police officer despite the responsibility of his position of authority, get a pass on acting emotionally but not the accused?
They are not however allowed to use a weapon just because they are in a bad mood or have a bad personality. If what this officer FEELS results in him using inappropriate force, then he shouldn’t be a police officer.
How about a cite for those guidelines?
I doubt they say “use a taser whenever and however you FEEL like using it.” …but if they do, they’re wrong regardless.
Yes there is. He’s a police officer. THAT’S HIS JOB! What’s he being payed for if not that? If he can’t do that job he should quit or be fired.
But he reacted incorrectly. As a police officer, he has responsibilities. He can’t just say, “I was mad” and get away with police brutality. I have a lot of sympathy for him as a person, and none for the angry granny. But that doesn’t change the fact that if this officers ‘latitude of being a human being’ does not allow him to live up to the responsibilities of police duty, he shouldn’t be a police officer.
?..and what was this officer protecting himself from when he tasered the angry granny?
Just tase everyone at first sight then? So far the only time you’ve admitted the use of a taser is inappropriate is when a suspect is already restrained. But why bother taking the risk of restraining them? Just tase everyone at first sight, drag them in, and then decide if a crime has even been committed. By your logic, what could be wrong with that?
Which makes a pretty good argument that police shouldn’t be given tasers at all. I happen to disagree though.
Nobody is claiming police should behave ideally. Just that they shouldn’t behave abhorrently.
you with the face, I believe a taser would have less of a chance of injury than a billy club - no bruises, broken bones, etcs. He was simply able to subdue (physically, that is), her in order to cuff her and get her into his vehicle. At that point, what choice DID he have? He had to restrain her some way, and several times, she had made an attempt to get back into her vehicle. He even told her she would be tased, and she said, “Go ahead.”
Question - do you have to actually touch someone with a taser, or can you simply just point it at them from a short distance?
I am afraid you haven’t quoted any of Bieze’s superiors. The Sheriff you did quote was quite clear that Bieze did not report to him. All the quotes from Bieze’s superiors said that he was following policy.
What rights do you think were violated? The right not to sign a ticket? The right to resist arrest?
There are no such rights.
He wasn’t acting emotionally - he was following policy.
He did not use the Tazer because he was in a bad mood or had a bad personality - he was following policy.
He didn’t use any inappropriate force - he was following policy.
No, they certainly don’t - but then again, he did not use the Tazer whenevr and however he felt like using it - he was following policy.
He was doing his job.
No, he did not - he was following policy.
What police brutality do you think you saw on the video? The hag in question does not seem to have suffered any damage. As I mention, she was able to go on TV and lie her ass off about the incident only hours later.
He was carrying out his duties as a police officer - he was making a lawful arrest of a malfeasor.
So your impression of the video is that he Tazered her on sight, is that correct?
Regards,
Shodan
Context Shodan… context.
It was Brown Eyed Girl who had defended the officers actions on the grounds of “the latitude of being a human being.”
Nope… read again.
And you claimed it was a violation of the old bat’s rights, and abhorrent and so forth. Do you stand by those characterizations?
Regards,
Shodan
When you shock someone and they fall to the ground, injuries can result from the fall especially to the elderly. This is the problem of the “safety” notion of the taser, in NYC a cop tased an individual on a second floor ledge and he fell to the ground on his head resulting in his death. He wasn’t killed by the taser, he was killed by the fall.
Waterboarding doesn’t injure you, but it’s a torture technique, the taser is a torture tool as well.
Oops… correction, it was cosmosdan who was defending the officer on grounds of latitude. Sorry.
Brown Eyed Girl Only made the claim that taser use is justified where it is necessary for ‘expediency’.
As for what rights are violated… if you and I were having a disagreement and, for expediency’s sake, I shot you with a taser, wouldn’t you say your rights had been violated?
What reason is there to say the angry granny had forfeited this right?
ETA:
People really don’t seem to understand that authority is not the same as a lack of responsibility/accountability. Quite the opposite in fact.
If American’s can’t understand this, their experiments in socialism are going to have some very nasty side-effects.
I thought it was common knowledge. In a thread like this opinions are what you get. There’s nothing to factually prove for the most part.
All Bieze’s superiors have have are opinions too even though theirs are based on more knowledge and experience. They also may have PR reasons skewing theirs. Obviously other cops disagree.
No, you would have been assaulted, which is a very different situation.
When she refused to sign the ticket the cop (by Texas law) had to arrest her. By resisting arrest (as seen on the video) she forfeited her right not to be treated with force. At any time during the process she could have chosen to cooperate with the cop. She would still likely have been arrested but he wouldn’t have needed to use the taser or other forceful means to enforce compliance.
In summary, refusing to obey the lawful orders of a LEO has consequences, some of which include having force used against you.
It might be the resisting arrest bit. When an officer is going to arrest you there’s not a lot up for discussion at that point.
I think a lot of people understand that just fine. We do expect more from trained professionals than civilians but we can’t always expect the ideal reaction from them. Otherwise we’d wind up with far too few trained professionals.
Fine, then I guess I should have said ‘expediency is not an acceptable reason for assault’
Is that better?
So if the officer felt like it, he could have just pulled out his gun and shot her in the head instead right?
I think you know it’s not that simple.
And thus we’re back to my original statement. The taser is not a tool to enforce compliance for the sake of expediency.
Seriously people… Try reading… THEN responding.
Again… nobody’s asking for the ideal reaction. But if their reaction undermines the very purpose they are meant to serve… how it that better than having fewer of them?
She got a shitload of passes. Every warning, every opportunity to follow lawful requests was an opportunity. She chose to let every one slip by until it was too late. That’s her fault.
Can you explain how he was supposed to enforce the law against an uncooperative person and do something different than he did? Regardless of what you think about his attitude and volume, what specific actions should he have taken to arrest her and deal with her resisting arrest.
No time to look those up but watching the video you see he issues his lawful commands and warnings several times. That’s what I’m talking about. Imagine it’s a belligerent uncooperative 25 year old man doing just what she did. Would you see it any differently? Realistically, what was the officer supposed to do?
<snip>.
As I said in another post, grannies know where you nads are. That’s how they got to be grannies. An officer is not required to take any kind of blow or scratch or kick , even from grannies. Not only that it’s not hard to imagine that the taser hurt her less than him physically forcing her into cuffs.
Do you really think a ridiculous exaggeration like this is a valid argument?
You’re getting your posters confused. Careful. I never said anything like that.
Then please explain what any officer is supposed to do when the person they pull over is belligerent, uncooperative, and physically resisting arrest.
Not really, since enforcing compliance from an uncooperative suspect isn’t assault.
And since no one suggested that, this is not relevant to the discussion. That wouldn’t achieve the desired goal, which is to place a suspect in custody with the least amount of harm to everyone involved while maintaining the peace.
It most definitely is a tool for compliance, and one that appears to have been justified in this situation. People are reading what you say, you’re just not producing a very convincing argument. This wasn’t an expediency case in any meaningful way.
I agree.
But I was referring to the fact that you gave the officer a pass for reasons of latitude, but not her.
Yes I can… and I have. I’d quote it… but first, I’m a little confused. What does this request actually have to do with the portion of my post you quoted?
Really? Because I could have sworn you were talking about cops being “allowed to be people and have moods and personalities that vary from officer to officer.” and implying that “the latitude of being a human being” somehow fell within those guidelines or somehow allows an exception to them.
Yes. I would see a belligerent uncooperative 25 year old man. Now what if it was a cute fuzzy bunny rabbit doing just what she did? Would you see it any differently? What is the point of this? This line of reasoning (if you can call it that) is either highly irrelevant, logically flawed, or just plain disingenuous.
That’s hilarious. You answered yourself for me. It’s not a ridiculous exaggeration. It’s ridiculous but it’s a logical conclusion from what you’re posting.
Yeah… I see that now… but you can understand how I would make that mistake. points to nested quote above
Seriously… if that’s how you see it… then when is it NOT acceptable to use a taser? WHY NOT just tase everybody at first sight?
Which is why I didn’t phrase it that way to begin with. Thank you.
If it isn’t relevant then why did you need to answer it? You know damn well it’s relevant. It’s a logical conclusion from the claims that have been made. If the angry granny forfeited her rights when she resisted arrest, and the officer is then allowed to do whatever he feels or whatever is expedient than why can’t he just shoot her in the head?
Yet the only justification given is expediency and the latitude of being a human being. Both seemingly inseparable from the conclusion that police should just tase people at first sight or even blow their brains out at the first sign of being uncooperative.
My assumption that you were not reading was based on the fact your responses had little relation to what has been said. Now that I know you are doing this intentionally simply because you are unconvinced, and uninterested in actually producing any argument, I suppose I won’t bother to respond to your disingenuous nonsense.
…
I am afraid you are dead wrong yet again, which is becoming quite a pattern for you in this thread. Read post #381.