Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Student Tasered at UCLA

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

    Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
    Something needs to be done, personally I'd rather get shot then tasered.
    No you wouldn't, because if you were shot you most likely would be dead. If you were taser'd as soon as it's over your back 100% There is no loss of consiousness, no residual pain, nothing, it's like you were never Tased at all. I have been pepper sprayed and Tase'd in training. I would much rather be Tase'd than sprayed with pepper spray. The pain is extremly intense with a Taser, but when it's over it's over. Pepper spray, is still usually incapacitating 30 minutes later.

    Those tasers are only supposed to be used when the officer feels threatened but doesn't need to use a lethal method.
    This is simply not true. In the majority of departments a Taser can be used, when someone is actively or passivly resisting.
    "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

    --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

      Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
      That's messed up and why people don't trust cops.

      Has anybody ever gotten along with cops or authority figures like that in general? Maybe it's just me but pretty much all the cops I've encountered are power-tripped pricks who just try to make themselves feel important.
      I get along with the cops just fine, never met one I couldn't relate to...
      "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

      --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
        I'm still waiting for the video where the person does what the police ask and still get tazed. Until then, these people are getting what they asked for.

        This isn't difficult. Let me spell it out for you. When you resist a police officer, you are committing a crime. I'd like to point out a signifigant difference in the video. Notice the kid that got tazed twice was antagonizing the officers, resisting, and refusing to do what was asked of him? Now, really late in the video, there's another kid in a white shirt raising hell with an officer. The officer says something to the effect of, "move along, or you'll be tazed as well". How does this young man react? He backs off. How many times was he tazed?

        NONE.

        Yes, some cops are pricks, some are on a major power trip. Regardless, when dealing with an officer, you swallow your pride and just get through the encounter the best you can. I've been cussed out, frisked for no reason other than I was running across the street, and then almost had a gun pulled on me because I was going for my ID, which I was asked for prior. Despite all that, I managed to have never gotten a ticket, incarcerated, or tazed.

        Do they use the tazer too much? Maybe, but it's a judgement call. There's no way to know if that kid was picking a fight so he could pull a razor blade out of his jeans and slash the throat of a cop. Every encounter is possibly a life-threatening one for an officer, and just because he's a college kid doesn't mean he's sane or smart. Thus, when you resist, you're sending a message to the cop that you're not willing to play by the rules. You're literally asking for something to happen to you via body language. Again, like I said in the other thread, 20 years ago, this kid would have been beaten with a baton until he complied. Would you prefer a broken rib or two and possibly a concussion or worse to the little burn marks?
        My compliments, well said!
        "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

        --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

          Originally posted by pollardfreek View Post
          It seems to me that cops can't stand when you know and uphold your civil liberties.
          I only wish more people knew them and upheld them....
          "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

          --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

            Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
            No you wouldn't, because if you were shot you most likely would be dead. If you were taser'd as soon as it's over your back 100% There is no loss of consiousness, no residual pain, nothing, it's like you were never Tased at all. I have been pepper sprayed and Tase'd in training. I would much rather be Tase'd than sprayed with pepper spray. The pain is extremly intense with a Taser, but when it's over it's over. Pepper spray, is still usually incapacitating 30 minutes later.



            This is simply not true. In the majority of departments a Taser can be used, when someone is actively or passivly resisting.

            As I've stated on here many times, I support the Taser & it's uses. But I absolutely vohemently disagree with the part I've bolded.

            By passive resistance you mean peacefull demonstrators who are employing non-violent resistance?

            I know you are going to disagree with me here & I'm sorry about that but I have to say this. If an officer does not feel either he or the public are being threatened then IMO (& yes it's just my opinion not some form of law) the officer is guilty of battery.

            Where do we draw the line? As I stated in my previous thread I think because Law Enforcement officers are required to sustain the shock the intended effect of this exercise is having the exact opposite reaction.

            As you know the reason you had to go through the shock is so that you would have to know what it feels like so that you would not abuse the system.

            But the exact opposite is happening IMO. To many officers are taking the "it's not that bad" approach to the situation.

            Most of you are between the ages of 21-45 are generally in good to excellent physical shape & don't usually have long term heart ailments. Also, frankly, since you are a cut above you guys are also not sissy's when it comes to pain.

            When you shock someone who is of the same caliber physically then usually the results are good.

            However when we start seeing elderly, or people with heart ailments or disease then we start seeing the problem.

            So far they have been able to attribute most deaths, if not all deaths, to victims who also have some form of chemical in their system. But the day is coming when that is not going to be there.

            I just pray that it is not on a passive resister because I have a feeling that would the be end of tasers.

            Again, please understand, I am not a bleeding heart out to say that you should not have this tool. I absolutely 100% support the use of tasers when the situation merits it. However passive resistance, IMO, is just not one of those times.


            Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

              Originally posted by Peck View Post
              As I've stated on here many times, I support the Taser & it's uses. But I absolutely vohemently disagree with the part I've bolded.

              By passive resistance you mean peacefull demonstrators who are employing non-violent resistance?

              I know you are going to disagree with me here & I'm sorry about that but I have to say this. If an officer does not feel either he or the public are being threatened then IMO (& yes it's just my opinion not some form of law) the officer is guilty of battery.

              Where do we draw the line? As I stated in my previous thread I think because Law Enforcement officers are required to sustain the shock the intended effect of this exercise is having the exact opposite reaction.

              As you know the reason you had to go through the shock is so that you would have to know what it feels like so that you would not abuse the system.

              But the exact opposite is happening IMO. To many officers are taking the "it's not that bad" approach to the situation.

              Most of you are between the ages of 21-45 are generally in good to excellent physical shape & don't usually have long term heart ailments. Also, frankly, since you are a cut above you guys are also not sissy's when it comes to pain.

              When you shock someone who is of the same caliber physically then usually the results are good.

              However when we start seeing elderly, or people with heart ailments or disease then we start seeing the problem.

              So far they have been able to attribute most deaths, if not all deaths, to victims who also have some form of chemical in their system. But the day is coming when that is not going to be there.

              I just pray that it is not on a passive resister because I have a feeling that would the be end of tasers.

              Again, please understand, I am not a bleeding heart out to say that you should not have this tool. I absolutely 100% support the use of tasers when the situation merits it. However passive resistance, IMO, is just not one of those times.
              By "passively resisting", I believe he's referring to people who resist arrest by being "dead weight", wiggling, etc.. I'm sure he'll be able to clarify, but I think what we're talking about is people resisting arrest through non-violent means. That doesn't mean they weren't violent, nor does it mean they won't become violent again. Take the video for instance. Sure, the kid in the video does some of what you're talking about, basically just refusing to leave. Of course, he also thrashes around quite a bit, and does some kicking, which is vastly different from what you're talking about.

              The thing is, you put the police into a no-win situation. If they taser him, they're assaulting a non-violent person. If they drag him to the squad car and he ends up bleeding due to being dragged across pavement, they were too violent. Peck, please understand that we're talking about criminals here, regardless of what kind they are. There is a kind of social contract between citizens and police officers. Citizens do what they're asked/told, and officers, in turn, don't abuse that power by victimizing citizens. When you resist arrest, you've broken that social contract, and, like I said in the other thread, you've essentially placed your safety and life in the custody of this police officer that you don't know from Adam. Not a smart move.

              Do the police officers occasionally break that social contract? Of course. But there are avenues to pursue after the fact when something like that happens. Your local police department is just as concerned as you are about "dirty cops", and, believe me, they take it very seriously. After all, the entire system is based on trust, and if you can't trust the police to make good decisions, then it makes their job harder and more dangerous due to your future unwillingness to cooperate.

              In terms of danger from tasers, the only concern I have is that someone with a pacemaker might get their pacemaker fried due to the voltage. Having said that, what are the alternatives? What will be the result of a guy with a pacemaker or medical condition wrestling with law enforcement officers for several minutes? I'd say you're almost as likely to have a heart attack in that sort of situation.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
                In my experience if you treat cops with respect, you'll get respect.

                I think most of you who complain about them are just smart asses, or jerks to them in the first place. In my 25 or so experiences with police, only once has one done anything I found out of place, and it was even minor.

                Speak to them in a "yes sir", "no sir" manor, be honest, and respectful and you'll get the same. Otherwise, it's your own fault.

                -- Steve --
                This has been my experience as well.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                  Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
                  So because he is a college student in a university library, he is allowed to resist arrest? And the police should have to go hands on to subdue him, and endanger themselves? Where is the outrage that a grown adult, can't comply with simple, lawful commands? Personal responsibillity to obey the law?
                  Your point is a valid one, and I understand it, I just don't like any situation where a person is allowed to taser another person repeatedly like that while he's wailing. I just don't have the stomach for it.

                  *edit* And Peck's point is in line with what I'm feeling as well. If they're not visibly trying to hurt the officer (which would include going for a weapon [or just looking like they are]), I feel it should be on the officer to hold off doing something like tasering until that situation changes. I know that's not fair to him, but I think it's how it should be.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                    Originally posted by MarionDeputy View Post
                    Why should I endanger myself or endanger the kid by forcibly trying to pick him up and drag him out?
                    Now that's the video I want to see. Arms behind the back and the sound of the thud, thud, thud as his head hits the stairs while they have to drag his butt out. I think I'll wait for ALL of the facts to come out before making a decision on this one.

                    In all seriousness if the young man would have just shown his ID this wouldn't have escalated. There are two reasons why an officer on a college campus needs to see your ID. Simply to find out are you affiliated with the college? You wouldn't believe the cons and thieves who are attracted to such easy targets as college men and women. If you're identified as belonging there that usually will put the officer at ease. I haven't seen an institution yet that doesn't pound into the officer's head that campus law enforcement works for the student and why they have a job. Back on topic........by identfying someone as a student you know you're able to reason with them, have something in common, and if a student is being unreasonable there are actually more channels of punishment on a college campus than out in the real world. You don't want a Dean on your bad side.
                    You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      As I've stated on here many times, I support the Taser & it's uses. But I absolutely vohemently disagree with the part I've bolded.

                      By passive resistance you mean peacefull demonstrators who are employing non-violent resistance?
                      The definition Eindar gave is correct, I am speaking about "dead weight", moving your body in a way that impedes someone from gaining control of you, all of these are potentially dangerous.

                      I certainly understand your viewpoint, but the reality is that elderly and infirmed are not being Tase'd. I also disagree with your theory of the police having the "it's not that bad" rationale. It is that bad, the pain is excrutiating, it is a good idea for those that are being entrusted with the use of the force to know the force they are weilding.

                      In jurisdictions where Taser are used, injuries to citizens, and officers alike have greatly decreased along with fatalitites. It isn't always pretty or an end all, be all, but it is effective. Until they make a phaser, I can set to "Stun", I will continue to support the lawful and correct use of the Taser.
                      "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

                      --Jack Nicholson as Colonel Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                        The Taser needs to be considered potentially lethal. The (police) perception that it is not potentially lethal is empowering its use too early and often.

                        Being stuck on dialup I am not able to watch this particular clip so am not speaking to it specifically.

                        People do take drugs, legally and otherwise. People do have heart ailments that lie dormant. Even athletes. Some people have known heart ailments. You can't always tell by looking. Just because someone has drugs in their system doesn't justify their death.... And you can't tell me putting voltage into someone's body can be good for their heart (or other organs) whether medicated or not.

                        The police acknowledge it causes pain. Here's a little tidbit... pain is a warning signal that your body gives.

                        I don't have a problem with police having tasers but it's pretty obvious they believe them to be 'safe' tools. And as Peck has said, their training has enforced that thought. It should be drilled that every use of a taser could be potentially fatal. If the situation still warrants it then that is fine but the police officer should always ask himself if this is a situation that he feels would warrant the death of the detained.

                        Yes, I know being a police officer is a tough job but there are more dangerous occupations out there. Also, it's a job you've chosen to do.

                        -Bball
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                          There is a definate anti-police bias in this country, from the general public and even the media. Here's a prime example of that biasness and how situations can escalate even with people who most wouldn't deem a threat.

                          Woman, 92, dies in shootout with police

                          ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- The niece of a 92-year-old woman shot to death by police said her aunt likely had reason to shoot three narcotics investigators as they stormed her house.

                          Police insisted the officers did everything right before entering the home Tuesday evening, despite suggestions from the woman's neighbors and relatives that it was a case of mistaken identity.

                          The woman, Kathryn Johnston, was the only resident in the house at the time and had lived there for about 17 years, Assistant Chief Alan Dreher said.

                          The officers had a legal warrant, "knocked and announced" before they forced open the door and were justified in shooting once fired upon, he said.

                          Sarah Dozier, the niece, told WAGA-TV that there were never drugs at the house. (Watch niece's fury at police shooting)

                          "My aunt was in good health. I'm sure she panicked when they kicked that door down," Dozier said. "There was no reason they had to go in there and shoot her down like a dog."

                          As the plainclothes Atlanta police officers approached the house about 7 p.m., a woman inside started shooting, striking each of them, said Officer Joe Cobb, a police spokesman.

                          One was hit in the arm, another in a thigh and the third in a shoulder. The officers were taken to a hospital for treatment, and all three were conscious and alert, police said.

                          The Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights leader, said Johnston's family deserves an apology.

                          "Of the police brutality cases we've had, this is the most egregious because of the woman's age," Hutchins said.

                          Hutchins said he would try to meet with Atlanta Police Chief Richard Pennington and would also meet with lawyers.

                          Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
                          http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/wom....ap/index.html

                          How many would think a 92 y/o woman would even have a gun, let alone within reaching distance and actually firing it at police officers that identified themselves before coming in? I know it sure as hell surprised me.

                          But what does the article talk about? How she was a victim and all these people are demanding an apology for police brutality. WTF! If officers have a freaking warrant to enter your house, then you have NO right to fire upon them, whether a mistake has been made or not.

                          I think this is a pretty good example of the attitude about LEOs in our country. Instead of complying, and giving them the respect they deserve, everyone tries to paint them as the bad guys.

                          I hate it when cops bust parties I'm at, but I've ever called one a "pig" or something along those lines. Their job is to keep me safe, and a that even calls for them to put their own lives in danger to ensure my safety, and I'm thankful for that.

                          I can't watch the vid here, but I've got a pretty good idea of what it shows. Whoever resists LEOs, whether by just not obeying a command or anything else, is asking for trouble and have no right to ***** once they get it.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                            What do you think the odds are he will show his ID card next time he is asked?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                              Since 86,
                              When you get down to the issue that she was an honest woman, 92 years old, living alone in her same home of 17 years then things get a little stickier for the police busting in in the first place.

                              Yes, they thought they were doing the right thing but this goes back to the question of police knocking before they enter... and how much work was done to be sure they were given a proper address and name. And another question enters into this... how about surveillance prior to all of this?

                              I imagine a thief could yell "Police" just before knocking down her door too. Yelling "Police" and then to come smashing in... is that what a 92 year old woman would/should expect the police to do?

                              And it appears this could all be in the name of a drug bust...

                              There should be some serious looking into how the mistaken identity was made.... and I hope it doesn't come out that neighbors were telling the police BEFORE this all went down that this was a case of mistaken identity.

                              Power and adrenaline can do strange things to both sides in these conflicts.

                              The police carry a tremendous responsibility and the burden should be pretty high on them when things go wrong.

                              And all that said... this article may not be telling the whole story so the above is dependant on the truth being presented in the first place.

                              FWIW... I am one of the people who believe it is better that 100 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person be wrongly convicted. ...And I'd even expand that to say "stand accused".

                              -Bball
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Student Tasered at UCLA

                                I think you just made my point for me.

                                -Calling her an "honest" woman. (She had a gun within reach)
                                -Shot three, not one, but three officers after they "announced and knocked"
                                -Shot at officers when they had every legal reason to be there.
                                -Saying a serious look of how a case of mistaken identity could have happened, when there is no evidence other than her relatives saying that was the case. Do you think that a family would admit that their grandmothers house was used for drug deals?

                                You automatically assume that the police was in the wrong, and that was exactly the point I was trying to make.
                                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X