Texas Cop Tasers Granny

[Sleeps_With_Butterflies]

@NoJustice

Idunno… that granny seems a lot less trusting of authority than she was before being tased for no reason.

She didn’t seem like she had much use for authority BEFORE she was tased, either dontcha think? It’s also pretty hard to say what’s real about anything granny says because in her little interview with the tv station she denies doing anything wrong and says the police report was “all lies” and yet when the dashcam video comes out disputing what she claimed she bailed out of her followup interview. Hmmmm.

[NoJustice]

This wasn’t directed at me, but It’s really been bugging me.

@Sleeps_With_Butterflies

You, boy, who has clearly not been trained to do said job, have no idea what the standard operating procedures are, and have not ever performed said job for even one hour in your life. With this wealth of experience and insight, you’d really and truly incarcerate this person who followed the procedures set forth by their department?

@GOD

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?

3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-

7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,

10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,

11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,

13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?

So sorry to obscure your counsel without knowledge Sleeps With Butterflies Surely we spoke of things we did not understand, things too wonderful for us to know.

[Magiver]

I can’t help but feel that Granny could easily fund her stupidity by offering it up as a ring tone. It has such a nice “Mr Bill” quality about it.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@NoJustice

Idunno… that granny seems a lot less trusting of authority than she was before being tased for no reason.

I can’t imagine what in the video gave you the impression that granny had any trust of authority to begin with. She certainly didn’t have any respect for it.

And as long as people expect to receive an on the spot trial, sentencing and corporal punishment any time an officer doesn’t like their attitude, it’s going to make all law enforcement a much more difficult job.

:rolleyes: What a complete load of shit.

HA! HA ha hahaha! You’re a raving lunatic who utterly fails at reading comprehension. That wasn’t the opinion I was speaking of. Which should have been obvious both from my quote of you above my comment and from the fact that you should know perfectly well which opinions you’ve refused to back up.

No, actually I don’t. I fail to see where I didn’t back up my opinions and where you pointed out which ones you felt I didn’t back up. Perhaps you were still talking in circles. But do tell, did you read anything I linked? Or are you too embarrassed to answer that question?

At this point I have no choice but to come right out and ask… Do you even know what my opinion is? I’ve stated precious few here.

“This officers mistakes started when he started making threats. Once he did so, he had little option except to follow through, or risk letting the situation spiral out of control in a very dangerous location.” Post #301.
“…(the part where it goes from a simple traffic stop to a cop screaming like a madman at an old woman) …” Post #322.
“…I think the real mistake was resorting to threats.” Post #322.
“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.” Post #405.
“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.” Post #405.
“Nobody is claiming police should behave ideally. Just that they shouldn’t behave abhorrently.” Post #405.
“The taser is not a tool to enforce compliance for the sake of expediency.” Post #415.
(This is right around the time you started off on flights of fancy, digging your heels in, and talking in circles.)
“He judged badly. If he can’t do better than that, he should quit or be fired.” Post #428.
“Yes… arresting her serves that purpose. The taser does not.” Post #459.

That about cover your “precious few” opinions? I have to admit, by comparison to Cisco or even me, you haven’t posted nearly as much opinion, but then you haven’t provided a whole lot of substance either.

So, the gist of your opinion is the cop made a mistake in losing his cool, made a mistake in using the taser which you believe is a defensive weapon (although you have no cite for that) , shouldn’t have used the taser, and in doing so his actions constituted police brutality and abhorrent behavior. Oh, and of course, he should quit or be fired for his poor judgment (despite the fact that it’s been pointed out several times that he did nothing illegal or in contradiction of his department’s policy.)

Is that a fair representation of your opinions?

What I have done is post inevitable logical sequiturs to the unsupported claims posted here. Sequiturs which you yourself have called asinine without denying (or apparently understanding that I was claiming) that it is indeed an inevitable sequitur to the claims you have made.

No, you don’t hop from a non/less-lethal method of enforcing compliance to deadly force intended to neutralize a threat and get to call that a logical sequitur, whatever the hell that means. It’s a leap in that the two have nothing to do with one another and once again, NOBODY has made any claims to that end. Except you. It’s stupid, it’s inflammatory, and it’s completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Such careful wording. I’d even go so far as to call it consciousness of guilt. That’s not what I claimed and you know it. Does anyone here see how disingenuous this is?

Oh, please.

“I don’t know why you trouble yourself by posting here though, if you aren’t interested in backing up your opinion in any way.”

Just because you refuse to read my cites, doesn’t mean I’m not interested in providing them. You can continue to be coy or you can ask me to for a cite if you’re still not satisfied I’ve sufficiently attempted to combat the willful ignorance that passes for debate around here.

Oh I could spend hours listing them all… Let’s just start with 2 for now ok? Because I’ve already quoted them. Look up… nope not past the top of this post… See them there? One of them starts with maniacal laughter, and the other starts with my name.

So, you’re are saying that my claim that I’ve provided cites to back up my opinion is a strawman? You often make no sense whatsoever.

See them now? Yeah you’re arguing against things I never said.
I dunno about anyone else but I CAN! Note once again I’ve posted precious few opinions. What I have posted are logical sequiturs to the claims made in this thread. How could that have been predetermined? You’re gonna go all hawking on me now aren’t ya

Frankly, I’m tired of you now. You make my head hurt with your inanity.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Boyo_Jim

…The vast majority of deaths falsely attributed to stuns are actually due to Excited Delirium Syndrome, which is a brain disorder recognized long before tasers were used by law enforcement. EDS is explained in great detail in the Miami-Dade Grand Jury report I previously linked.
…

I’m curious if you have a link about this. According to Wiki (hardly authoritative, I know), this condition is not recognized by either the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association. Here’s part of what the article says:

Eric Balaban of the American Civil Liberties Union said: “I know of no reputable medical organization — certainly not the American Medical Association (AMA) or the American Psychological Association (APA) that recognizes excited delirium as a medical or mental-health condition.”[4] Melissa Smith of the American Medical Association said the organization has “no official policy” on the disorder.[5]

Grame Norton, director of the public safety project of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association argues that “Anytime you see a specific condition being referenced in only one context it raises serious question.” Other critics assert that the term is used to mask police brutality. Although the term “excited delirium” has been accepted by the National Association of Medical Examiners, the American Medical Association has no official policy on its use. The Canadian Medical Association Journal dismisses it as a “pop culture phenomenon”.[10] The condition is not recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

I sincerely apologize for missing this. Apparently, I missed a whole chunk of yesterday. I’m actually quite intrigued by this topic as there is a fair amount of conflicting opinion, but not a lot of information on this on the face of things. It seems to have been recognized, near as I can tell, in the '80s by a University of Miami professor of neurology, although historical reports indicate earlier deaths that fit the profile.

From what I understand EDS is actually a physical brain disorder that causes mental instability, not just mental instability. It reportedly causes lethal physiological changes in the body as well as mental instability, the former requiring medical intervention, but the latter invariably attracting police attention. The Miami-Dade Grand Jury report indicated that EMTs are stocking equipment and supplies specifically to combat the syndrome, but due to the violent nature of the mentally unstable patient, often have difficulty administering medical attention. Their conclusion is that tasering the suspect/patient is helpful for controlling the subject so that medical intervention can be administered in a more timely manner. I’d love to find some information on some patients that survived as I would presume there would be some.

Anyway, that’s about all I know right now. I’ll do a bit more research on it and perhaps start a new topic to discuss it. I’d also love to get some impressions and professional opinions of Dopers in the medical field, particularly Qadgop. It is a fascinating topic.

[Koxinga]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

From what I understand EDS is actually a physical brain disorder that causes mental instability, not just mental instability.

“Roses are red / Violets are blue / I’m schizophrenic / and so am I”

sorry

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Koxinga

“Roses are red / Violets are blue / I’m schizophrenic / and so am I”

sorry

Hehe. I always enjoyed that joke until someone informed me that that would be multiple personality disorder, not schizophrenia. And then I realized I’d be forced to ruin the joke for other people as well. :o

[NoJustice]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

I can’t imagine what in the video gave you the impression that granny had any trust of authority to begin with. She certainly didn’t have any respect for it.

It was an example for the purposes of clarity. The fact that it’s arguable is irrelevant. Are you or are you not trying to rebut my refutation of your claim that “Nobody got seriously hurt or in any way that left any long-lasting effects”?

What a complete load of shit.

Ooh… brilliant rhetoric. I suppose you’ve backed that opinion up… right?
looks around…

…

Right?

No, actually I don’t. I fail to see where I didn’t back up my opinions and where you pointed out which ones you felt I didn’t back up.

Once again your failure to see what is right in front of you does not make you right.

Perhaps you were still talking in circles. But do tell, did you read anything I linked? Or are you too embarrassed to answer that question?

I have read all of it, unnecessary as it was since I haven’t disagreed with any of the claims which you posted those cites to support.

And now for an excercise is pointless quoting…I gather from the quote that you are trying to demonstrate your ability to deduce my opinion from the fact that I have posted it. Other than that I see no point to it.

@NoJustice

This officers mistakes started when he started making threats. Once he did so, he had little option except to follow through, or risk letting the situation spiral out of control in a very dangerous location.

Yup… My very first post in this thread. And indeed an opinion. Note this opinion was given in defence of the officer’s “shove” in an attempt to make my position clear on the matter, hoping, apparently naively that my position wouldn’t be mischaracterized. Also note that in the entire thread…
NOBODY HAS ONCE STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS OPINION OF MINE!!!
Nor did I expect them to. That’s why I didn’t provide cites. I was convinced (and quite correctly) that it was unnecessary. So you can quote… but we already knew that… the question is… can you read?

@NoJustice

the part where it goes from a simple traffic stop to a cop screaming like a madman at an old woman

More of a characterization than an opinion. Also note that once again…
NOBODY STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS!!!

@Nojustice

I think the real mistake was resorting to threats

A restating of the same opinion.
STILL NOBODY DISAGREES WITH IT!!!
Boy you’re really good at this.

@NoJustice

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.

Ohh, you’re getting warmer… This one is a restating of the same opinion (because JThunder apparently misunderstood) While doing so, I made several actual claims. Again, ones which I felt nobody would disagree with. Several posters attempted to (quite disingenuously) refute these claims… but were rebutted. This is when the repetition and strawmen began. But it’s really a good try. You’re awfully close to not looking totaly incompetent here. Enough so that now I’m actually curious to what the point of this quote-fest is.

@NoJustice

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.

Yes… the same opinion, this time boiled down to a single short statement. (STILL NOBODY DISAGREES WITH IT!!!) Combined with a claim which ALSO NOBODY HAS STATED ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH!!!

@NoJustice

Nobody is claiming police should behave ideally. Just that they shouldn’t behave abhorrently.

A fact easily observed by meerly reading the thread. Is it an opinion to state that the sky is blue? If so then I guess you’ve got me… you’ve finally found a 2nd opinion.
…and?
What does this prove? Also note that once again…
NOBODY STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS OPINION OF MINE!!!

@NoJustice

The taser is not a tool to enforce compliance for the sake of expediency.

Yup that’s 3. Also note that once again…
NOBODY STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS OPINION OF MINE!!!

@NoJustice

He judged badly. If he can’t do better than that, he should quit or be fired

Yup that’s 4, and once again…
NOBODY STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS OPINION OF MINE!!!
Betcha wish now you had made the effort to write an argument on that one… or at least claim I was incorrect, instead of just insulting me.

@NoJustice

Yes… arresting her serves that purpose. The taser does not.

Hmm… yeah, that’s 5. You’re starting to get the hang of it… but what are you actually trying to prove with this? Once again…
NOBODY STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS OPINION OF MINE!!!

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

That about cover your “precious few” opinions?

Yup you found all 5 of them. Your point in all this?

I have to admit, by comparison to Cisco or even me, you haven’t posted nearly as much opinion, but then you haven’t provided a whole lot of substance either.

Is this why you are so determined to put words in my mouth?

So, the gist of your opinion is the cop made a mistake in losing his cool

NO!
Read the thread.

made a mistake in using the taser

NO!
Seriously… You really oughta actually read the thread.

which you believe is a defensive weapon (although you have no cite for that)

I didn’t think anyone would disagree with this. And so far they haven’t. Are you saying you disagree?

shouldn’t have used the taser, and in doing so his actions constituted police brutality

NO!
STFU if you’re not gonna read the thread!

and abhorrent behavior

Congratulations You finally caught the broad side of a barn by shooting in all directions with your eyes closed.

Oh, and of course, he should quit or be fired for his poor judgment (despite the fact that it’s been pointed out several times that he did nothing illegal or in contradiction of his department’s policy.)

Is that a fair representation of your opinions?

NOT EVEN CLOSE!
YOU REALLY CAN’T HELP IT CAN YOU? YOU REALLY DO THINK YOU CAN JUST PRETEND PEOPLE ARE SAYING WHATEVER THE FUCK IS CONVENIENT FOR YOU TO ‘DEFEAT’ THEM.
I apologize for saying you were disingenuous. I thought it was an inescapable conclusion that you were doing this on purpose, but now I see the much more likely possibility that you are simply, completely out of your fucking mind.

[Koxinga]

My cat’s breath smells like pie.

[Shodan]

Taser him.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

NoJustice, you claimed above that one or more of the rights of the old harridan had been violated. Could you describe what rights those were, and how they were violated?

Regards,
Shodan

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

NoJustice, dude. Take a break. If you have to resort to large, bold, red font to try to make your tortured points, you’re over the edge.

[ivan_astikov]

Move away from the thread, or this is going to get nasty!

Do you really want to make me use Comic Sans?

[cosmosdan]

@NoJustice

I agree.
But I was referring to the fact that you gave the officer a pass for reasons of latitude, but not her.

THat’s right. Within the boundaries of doing a his job and following proper procedure the officer gets a pass if he is less patient at times or does not make the optimal judgment call every time, out of hundreds of times.

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?

You implied the officer did what he did based on being in a bad mood and used excessive force. I’m asking what you think he could have done differently to arrest someone who was resisting arrest regardless of your opinions about his mood or volume.

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.

I specifically said the “guidelines of** his training**” Within those guidelines and the outlines of proper procedure for dealing with situation X, {in this case an uncooperative, combative person who then resists arrest} it is realistic for an officer to be less patient at some times than other times. It is realistic for an officer to use the hard intimidation approach when perhaps a softer approach would have been more successful. As long as the officer is following proper procedure and within the guidelines of his training he’s right because he’s the one enforcing our laws. The person breaking** our laws ** is wrong.

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.

Well hold off on you "gotcha " victory dance for a while. It’s perfectly reasonable.
I was trying to discover if you thought granny deserved special treatment and consideration because she’s a granny.

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.

You seriously need to tweak your idea of logic. There is nothing logical about that conclusion. The officer told her to turn around repeatedly. He tried to cuff her and she resisted. He drew his taser and warned her 5 times before firing. That’s what we’re discussing. It in no way suggest or logically implies “tasing at first sight”. Your tendency to resort to ridiculous exaggeration doesn’t help your argument.

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?

Seriously? Here’s a little exercise in logic you can try to follow. A situation escalates from being belligerent and uncooperative to the point where the officer is placing the person under arrest. Starting from** that point**, not first sight, the person resists arrest. The officer must choose how best to force compliance with the law. A physical struggle may result in injuries to the officer and the person being arrested. A taser holds some chance of injury for the person being arrested and a lot less for the officer. The taser seems the most reasonable choice.

In this case the officer could have injured the woman* more* by twisting her arms behind her while she resisted than by what he chose to do.

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?

Honestly, this continued worthless exaggeration isn’t helping you at all.

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.

It’s only inseparable to an illogical and unreasonable person.

[cosmosdan]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

NoJustice, dude. Take a break. If you have to resort to large, bold, red font to try to make your tortured points, you’re over the edge.

Oh, …I thought that meant he won.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by NoJustice
NOBODY STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS OPINION OF MINE!!!

Before you make this incorrect statement several times maybe** you** should read the thread.

[Shodan]

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?

No one is arguing that the officer can do whatever he feels. He should, and did, follow policy. That policy does not lead to anyone forfeiting any rights - no one has a right to resist arrest. There is certainly an expectation that whatever force is used to effect an arrest is reasonable - the minimum amount that is likely to bring about the arrest, with minimal damage to the officer and to the arrestee. As mentioned, this is what occurred - the nasty old coot was on TV a day or so later without a mark on her (and lying busily about the circumstances.)

@NoJustice

This officers mistakes started when he started making threats.

NOBODY HAS ONCE STATED ANY KIND OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS OPINION OF MINE!!!

I disagree with it - I do not see where the officer made any mistakes. He was expected to follow policy, and did. The policy worked as expected - the nasty old bitch was arrested without injury.

@NoJustice

Are you or are you not trying to rebut my refutation of your claim that “Nobody got seriously hurt or in any way that left any long-lasting effects”?

Maybe I don’t understand this. Are you claiming that someone got seriously hurt, or suffered any long-lasting effect? Because I don’t see where you presented any evidence that the old bitch did.

@NoJustice

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.

Yes… the same opinion, this time boiled down to a single short statement. (STILL NOBODY DISAGREES WITH IT!!!) Combined with a claim which ALSO NOBODY HAS STATED ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH!!!

Again, you are mistaken. I do disagree with this. No police brutality occurred, and the officer did not do it because he was mad - he followed established procedure.

Regards,
Shodan

[tomndebb]

Enough!

[ /Modding ]