He generalizes this case with any situation that could ever happen and that is a horrible way to make a point. Obviously you could assume that ANY car is packed with C4 or any other type of threat- but in any NORMAL situation, you would have no reason to assume this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So he brings up many situations, while you bring up one, assume it's the case, and then act on it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this particular case, however, we see a civilian disobeying a DIRECT ORDER from a policeman. When people directly disobey a police man's orders, they are automatically forced to be put under suspsicion. No one should be assumed to be "safe" or not doing anything illegal if they fail to comply with a cop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, BlueTear just took that one step further - basically his logic is asking the question, where do we stop? Sure she could have had a gun, but it's also possible she had worse than a gun. So why assume the gun?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not expresing views on whether or not the cop is in the right/wrong - I'm more trying to defend someone calling someone else stupid, with no reasons to do so, and when asked to provide reasoning, side stepped the question.

 

He generalizes this case with any situation that could ever happen and that is a horrible way to make a point. Obviously you could assume that ANY car is packed with C4 or any other type of threat- but in any NORMAL situation, you would have no reason to assume this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So he brings up many situations, while you bring up one, assume it's the case, and then act on it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this particular case, however, we see a civilian disobeying a DIRECT ORDER from a policeman. When people directly disobey a police man's orders, they are automatically forced to be put under suspsicion. No one should be assumed to be "safe" or not doing anything illegal if they fail to comply with a cop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, BlueTear just took that one step further - basically his logic is asking the question, where do we stop? Sure she could have had a gun, but it's also possible she had worse than a gun. So why assume the gun?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not expresing views on whether or not the cop is in the right/wrong - I'm more trying to defend someone calling someone else stupid, with no reasons to do so, and when asked to provide reasoning, side stepped the question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you assume that she could pose any threat, not just that of a gun. It is human instinct to act on a direct disobedince to an authority. In this case the police officer assumed that any possible thing could happen, and simply did not take any chances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with what he did or how he went about doing it. I do not know what it is like to be hit with a baton, tazered, shot, or pepper-sprayed, and I do not want to know what it would be like. Therefore, I am not going to disobey a police officer with a gun, a tazer, pepper-spray, and a baton. It sounds like the smart thing to me.

 

He generalizes this case with any situation that could ever happen and that is a horrible way to make a point. Obviously you could assume that ANY car is packed with C4 or any other type of threat- but in any NORMAL situation, you would have no reason to assume this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So he brings up many situations, while you bring up one, assume it's the case, and then act on it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this particular case, however, we see a civilian disobeying a DIRECT ORDER from a policeman. When people directly disobey a police man's orders, they are automatically forced to be put under suspsicion. No one should be assumed to be "safe" or not doing anything illegal if they fail to comply with a cop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly, BlueTear just took that one step further - basically his logic is asking the question, where do we stop? Sure she could have had a gun, but it's also possible she had worse than a gun. So why assume the gun?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not expresing views on whether or not the cop is in the right/wrong - I'm more trying to defend someone calling someone else stupid, with no reasons to do so, and when asked to provide reasoning, side stepped the question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't call anyone stupid so don't use that when you argue with what I said please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you are still wrong, I'm sorry. Please read this statement again because you skewed my previous statements enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueTear's overgeneralation is fallible to the point of (pardon the pun) tears. You CANNOT rationally and acceptably make the argument that BlueTear attempted to make, and that you defended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueTear OVERgeneralized the situation. Meaning - he made it MORE general than it is. Generalizing the statement (what you interpreted me as saying) would be referencing lots of cases where people were openly disobeying a police officer's orders. OVERgeneralizing is taking it a step too far where it doesn't apply - and applying it to EVERY situation that involves people speeding. BIG difference, so please do not skew my words to make them satisfy you're point anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: So that you don't attempt to call me on the use of my word "generalize" without over, I want to point out tha tin the sentence you quoted was also misinterpreted. I said "in any situation that could ever happen" emphasizing a wrongly exagerrated argument.

I didn't call anyone stupid so don't use that when you argue with what I said please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where it's all coming from. More or less I was calling MPC on calling a very intelligent poster stupid. That's where it came from... when he persisted, I asked him to show where BlueTear was being "stupid"... so of course I brought it up, because it's how this all started.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terms like generalization and overgeneralization confuse me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's what I see in simple terms:

 

 

 

You: She could've had a gun (I agree)... tase her before anything happens (I agree).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueTear: She could've had something worse than a gun... do what is necessary in this case...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueTear is ONLY showing you how far it can be taken... she *could* have had something worse than a gun! Why not act on that?! Why doesn't it apply? Are you saying she couldn't have had worse than a gun? That's quite a presumption. I'm pretty sure the people who have worse than guns directly disobey policemen's orders as well. And speed. It fits the situation.

 

I didn't call anyone stupid so don't use that when you argue with what I said please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where it's all coming from. More or less I was calling MPC on calling a very intelligent poster stupid. That's where it came from... when he persisted, I asked him to show where BlueTear was being "stupid"... so of course I brought it up, because it's how this all started.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Terms like generalization and overgeneralization confuse me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's what I see in simple terms:

 

 

 

You: She could've had a gun (I agree)... tase her before anything happens (I agree).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueTear: She could've had something worse than a gun... do what is necessary in this case...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BlueTear is ONLY showing you how far it can be taken... she *could* have had something worse than a gun! Why not act on that?! Why doesn't it apply? Are you saying she couldn't have had worse than a gun? That's quite a presumption. I'm pretty sure the people who have worse than guns directly disobey policemen's orders as well. And speed. It fits the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand what BlueTear is doing - and if he's ONLY trying to show how far it can be taken with no motive behind it - his post is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However if he is trying to make a stand with his point, I'm making the point that his argument is completely irrational. I dare someone to challenge me on that point.

However if he is trying to make a stand with his point, I'm making the point that his argument is completely irrational. I dare someone to challenge me on that point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I completely agree, I wasn't looking into practical conclusion :) and I don't think he was either.

 

However if he is trying to make a stand with his point, I'm making the point that his argument is completely irrational. I dare someone to challenge me on that point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I completely agree, I wasn't looking into practical conclusion :) and I don't think he was either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now shall we start the discussion about the mass amounts of miscommunications that happen when talking over the internet?

 

Oh dear, this has certainly sunk far ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order of justified progression:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Cop pulls her over

 

 

 

2) Cop tell her to get out

 

 

 

3) She ignores

 

 

 

4) Cop tells her to hang up the phone

 

 

 

5) She ignores

 

 

 

6) Cop uses the force that was GRANTED to him when people DISOBEY DIRECT POLICE ORDERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because she violated a direct police order, she is considered dangerous. Maybe you would rather seen the face blown off the cop?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry that your poor little heart bleeds for this woman who IGNORED DIRECT POLICE ORDERS, but get over it. She knew the law - she knew the punishment for what she did - and she did it anyway. Do you think that taser is there just for looks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, she disobeyed orders, I understand that. Therefore, force was necessary. But 50000 volts goes beyond that force. For all we know, she could still be physically damaged by that. I'm sure there's psychological damage there as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He could've pulled her out of the car. He could've used a taser with much less force. There are so many other things he could've done. And the second shock ... I don't need to explain that. That was even more unnecessary as she obviously had little to no control of her limbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and MyPurpleCrayon, you're just further proving our point (us being people who agree with myself on this issue) by not responding to that. He used YOUR logic. If you're too stubborn and ignorant to realise that you were wrong, then I pity you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but 5000 volts is the force we have granted policemen to use in cases such as this. If you believe that 5000 volts is too much then take it up with the federal government, not the individual policeman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And once again you, along with everyone else, have misunderstand the entire point. Yes he could have "pulled her out" but she was sitting in a car disobeying orders. That makes her suspicious. Suspicious people sometimes have weapons. Pulling her out of a car could make her use that weapon on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that train of logic too hard for you to follow? We give policemen tasers for situations such as this. I'd rather have someone tasered out of a vehicile (which she was warned of it happening and had plenty of time to comply) than have a police officer's face blown a part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(To comment on using "your own logic" to MyPrupleCrown. Read the post above about the complete fallicy of the argument. I'm so sorry that you people lack the basic skills needed to interpret realistic logic.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing a 0 there. 50000 volts. Now, I understand that force was necessary. It was the only way to get her out of the car. However, they could've used a lot less force there and still managed to get her out of the car.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, I'd like to see you justify the second tasing.

lol, what's the point of a taser if you ain't going to shock someone with 50000 volts :lol:

 

 

Oh dear, this has certainly sunk far ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order of justified progression:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Cop pulls her over

 

 

 

2) Cop tell her to get out

 

 

 

3) She ignores

 

 

 

4) Cop tells her to hang up the phone

 

 

 

5) She ignores

 

 

 

6) Cop uses the force that was GRANTED to him when people DISOBEY DIRECT POLICE ORDERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because she violated a direct police order, she is considered dangerous. Maybe you would rather seen the face blown off the cop?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry that your poor little heart bleeds for this woman who IGNORED DIRECT POLICE ORDERS, but get over it. She knew the law - she knew the punishment for what she did - and she did it anyway. Do you think that taser is there just for looks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, she disobeyed orders, I understand that. Therefore, force was necessary. But 50000 volts goes beyond that force. For all we know, she could still be physically damaged by that. I'm sure there's psychological damage there as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He could've pulled her out of the car. He could've used a taser with much less force. There are so many other things he could've done. And the second shock ... I don't need to explain that. That was even more unnecessary as she obviously had little to no control of her limbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and MyPurpleCrayon, you're just further proving our point (us being people who agree with myself on this issue) by not responding to that. He used YOUR logic. If you're too stubborn and ignorant to realise that you were wrong, then I pity you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but 5000 volts is the force we have granted policemen to use in cases such as this. If you believe that 5000 volts is too much then take it up with the federal government, not the individual policeman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And once again you, along with everyone else, have misunderstand the entire point. Yes he could have "pulled her out" but she was sitting in a car disobeying orders. That makes her suspicious. Suspicious people sometimes have weapons. Pulling her out of a car could make her use that weapon on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that train of logic too hard for you to follow? We give policemen tasers for situations such as this. I'd rather have someone tasered out of a vehicile (which she was warned of it happening and had plenty of time to comply) than have a police officer's face blown a part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(To comment on using "your own logic" to MyPrupleCrown. Read the post above about the complete fallicy of the argument. I'm so sorry that you people lack the basic skills needed to interpret realistic logic.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing a 0 there. 50000 volts. Now, I understand that force was necessary. It was the only way to get her out of the car. However, they could've used a lot less force there and still managed to get her out of the car.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, I'd like to see you justify the second tasing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for dropping a zero. Please tell me what less force was? As mentioned by someone else, if he used a baton she could have driven away. Pepper spray is hardly less force. What would you use that would prevent her from driving away but not hurt her *too* bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will justify the second tasering with the same premise as my justification of the first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were not there. We do not understand what it is to be in a situation like that where we believe someone is dangerous. Not until YOU are in that situation can you truly say something was out of line because you do not know what it was really like. A video tape can only show so much.

 

 

 

I will justify the second tasering with the same premise as my justification of the first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were not there. We do not understand what it is to be in a situation like that where we believe someone is dangerous. Not until YOU are in that situation can you truly say something was out of line because you do not know what it was really like. A video tape can only show so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming that he thought she was dangerous before the first tasering - and not just frustrated that she wasn't obeying orders. I can't even imagine what justifyable thoughts could have been going through the policeman's mind which made him taser her the second time. If he really still thought that she was dangerous after hearing her scream the first time and looking at her writhing around on the floor, then he isn't a very good policeman. Sounds like the type of person that would shoot you for sneezing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but your comment sounds like "trust him, he's a policeman, you're not, he knows what's best because he was there." According to your signature, you don't trust your government to tax you, so why do you seem to trust policemen?

 

 

 

 

I will justify the second tasering with the same premise as my justification of the first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were not there. We do not understand what it is to be in a situation like that where we believe someone is dangerous. Not until YOU are in that situation can you truly say something was out of line because you do not know what it was really like. A video tape can only show so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assuming that he thought she was dangerous before the first tasering - and not just frustrated that she wasn't obeying orders. I can't even imagine what justifyable thoughts could have been going through the policeman's mind which made him taser her the second time. If he really still thought that she was dangerous after hearing her scream the first time and looking at her writhing around on the floor, then he isn't a very good policeman. Sounds like the type of person that would shoot you for sneezing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but your comment sounds like "trust him, he's a policeman, you're not, he knows what's best because he was there." According to your signature, you don't trust your government to tax you, so why do you seem to trust policemen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh noooo I made sure to avoid saying "trust him, he's a policeman" and I know that's what it sounds like what I'm saying. Sorry about that confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last year there was a cop speeding down the road for no reason and he wrecked and killed someone. The cop was let off. :evil: I don't trust cops all the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What my previous comment meant wasn't that we should just trust the cop because he's a cop - but we shouldn't pass the judgement against him based on the tape. If we didn't talk to the cop and the girl about it and understand what the situation was really like - I don't think we can pass judgement against him. When the people who looked into the case, examined the situation not just based on a single tape but on the testimony of the cop and the woman, they determined he was justified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is not that we should trust the cop - but that we just don't know what the situation was like by seeing one video clip.

 

 

 

He generalizes this case with any situation that could ever happen and that is a horrible way to make a point. Obviously you could assume that ANY car is packed with C4 or any other type of threat- but in any NORMAL situation, you would have no reason to assume this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this particular case, however, we see a civilian disobeying a DIRECT ORDER from a policeman. When people directly disobey a police man's orders, they are automatically forced to be put under suspsicion. No one should be assumed to be "safe" or not doing anything illegal if they fail to comply with a cop.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But a worst case scenario is instantly appliable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's what he's saying. After she's handed over her papers (I'm presuming that's what occurs right before the officer steps away and asks "Do you still live...." and walks back to the car), which I'd say is fairly compliant considering all the whining she's doing. The policeman, before producing his tazer, opens her door. He reaches inside. She tells him not to touch her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suddenly, she *might* have a gun and should be tazered because of it. She's given him her papers, he opened the door without getting shot, he reached inside without getting shot (and as far as I could tell, he did so without hesitation despite leaving her alone in her car for more than 40 seconds, which is ample time to produce a concealed firearm), but because she won't step outside, suddenly she *might* have a gun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether she deserved 50 000 volts or not; "she *might* have had a gun" is an argument with holes like a piece of swiss cheese.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not even going to respond to your stupidity....just read my above post. I still stand by everything I said...totally ignored.

 

 

 

So much for hoping you'd extend the same courtsey I showed you then?

 

 

 

When the people who looked into the case, examined the situation not just based on a single tape but on the testimony of the cop and the woman, they determined he was justified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is not that we should trust the cop - but that we just don't know what the situation was like by seeing one video clip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hmm, that's a good point - sorry for misunderstanding you. Still though, I don't really trust their judgement, because as far as I understand it was essentially the policeman's boss that undertook the inquiry, and he would not want to show the policeman in a bad light. Firstly because it would draw negative attention to the police training methods which certified this policeman, and secondly because tasers are still a fairly new tool for policemen - and one that policemen find extremely useful - and he wouldn't want to draw attention to their negative aspects and possibly risk a public backlash against them.

("Hey, they *might* have WMD's! Nuke!")

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you so very much for being oh so courteous and kind to me by mocking me and attempting to make me look like an ignorant fool. I just appreciate it so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I take back my comment about your stupidity, but I still think that your point is very irrational when compared to what I was trying to get across.

 

 

 

Thank you so very much for being oh so courteous and kind to me by mocking me and attempting to make me look like an ignorant fool. I just appreciate it so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm happy to apologize for any offense that last sentence caused. It was meant merely as a further, extreme, example of how acting on 'might-haves' doesn't work. There's just too many things that "might" be possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as general sidenote, after thinking about it for a while, I actually think the first dose was justified. Not because she might have been armed (which I doubt the officer thought), not because it was more 'humane' than phyiscally forcing her out of the vehicle but because she was properly warned. There's a bit more theory behind it, but this was supposed to be a sidenote.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(The second dose is questionable to say the least. Police-grade tazers make all the muscles in the body contract, leaving whoever you taze in a foetal position on the ground. Expecting anyone to be able to comply within such a short timeframe is unreasonable; They were not designed so someone who got shot with them could just get up and keep going, they're supposed to keep them down for a while. If she'd been able to roll over immidetly,the tazer's not doing what it's designed for)

 

 

 

 

Thank you so very much for being oh so courteous and kind to me by mocking me and attempting to make me look like an ignorant fool. I just appreciate it so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm happy to apologize for any offense that last sentence caused. It was meant merely as a further, extreme, example of how acting on 'might-haves' doesn't work. There's just too many things that "might" be possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you failed to read my above post? Your example of "might haves" is completely irrational and doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

 

Oh dear, this has certainly sunk far ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Order of justified progression:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Cop pulls her over

 

 

 

2) Cop tell her to get out

 

 

 

3) She ignores

 

 

 

4) Cop tells her to hang up the phone

 

 

 

5) She ignores

 

 

 

6) Cop uses the force that was GRANTED to him when people DISOBEY DIRECT POLICE ORDERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because she violated a direct police order, she is considered dangerous. Maybe you would rather seen the face blown off the cop?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry that your poor little heart bleeds for this woman who IGNORED DIRECT POLICE ORDERS, but get over it. She knew the law - she knew the punishment for what she did - and she did it anyway. Do you think that taser is there just for looks?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, she disobeyed orders, I understand that. Therefore, force was necessary. But 50000 volts goes beyond that force. For all we know, she could still be physically damaged by that. I'm sure there's psychological damage there as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He could've pulled her out of the car. He could've used a taser with much less force. There are so many other things he could've done. And the second shock ... I don't need to explain that. That was even more unnecessary as she obviously had little to no control of her limbs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and MyPurpleCrayon, you're just further proving our point (us being people who agree with myself on this issue) by not responding to that. He used YOUR logic. If you're too stubborn and ignorant to realise that you were wrong, then I pity you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but 5000 volts is the force we have granted policemen to use in cases such as this. If you believe that 5000 volts is too much then take it up with the federal government, not the individual policeman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And once again you, along with everyone else, have misunderstand the entire point. Yes he could have "pulled her out" but she was sitting in a car disobeying orders. That makes her suspicious. Suspicious people sometimes have weapons. Pulling her out of a car could make her use that weapon on you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is that train of logic too hard for you to follow? We give policemen tasers for situations such as this. I'd rather have someone tasered out of a vehicile (which she was warned of it happening and had plenty of time to comply) than have a police officer's face blown a part.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(To comment on using "your own logic" to MyPrupleCrown. Read the post above about the complete fallicy of the argument. I'm so sorry that you people lack the basic skills needed to interpret realistic logic.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing a 0 there. 50000 volts. Now, I understand that force was necessary. It was the only way to get her out of the car. However, they could've used a lot less force there and still managed to get her out of the car.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, I'd like to see you justify the second tasing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for dropping a zero. Please tell me what less force was? As mentioned by someone else, if he used a baton she could have driven away. Pepper spray is hardly less force. What would you use that would prevent her from driving away but not hurt her *too* bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will justify the second tasering with the same premise as my justification of the first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We were not there. We do not understand what it is to be in a situation like that where we believe someone is dangerous. Not until YOU are in that situation can you truly say something was out of line because you do not know what it was really like. A video tape can only show so much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, to my knowledge, you can set the tazer to different currents. Therefore, a far less dangerous voltage would have been suitable. He could've also physically forced her out of the car, as I've said countless times before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for your second point, we do get a grasp of the situation from the video camera. Granted, it's not everything, but it's sure as hell enough to tell that that cop was out of line. A video tape can only show so much - and it showed enough to indicate that the second tasing was police brutality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is not that we should trust the cop - but that we just don't know what the situation was like by seeing one video clip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you don't know what the situation is, why are you defending the officer's actions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you failed to read my above post? Your example of "might haves" is completely irrational and doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His examples are only as irrational as your logic. He was applying it to various situations and illustrating the flaws in basing behaviour on the principle that someone might have something.

Well, to my knowledge, you can set the tazer to different currents. Therefore, a far less dangerous voltage would have been suitable. He could've also physically forced her out of the car, as I've said countless times before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you know those different voltages are? Please tell me. Once again your repeated an argument that I've already proven to not make sense. If the cop just tries to use just physical force (I'm assuming you mean a baton or just his arms because a taser is PHYSICAL force) then the person could easily slam on the accelerator and get away. Why did you ignore this point? Is it because you failed to come up with a logical argument against it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for your second point, we do get a grasp of the situation from the video camera. Granted, it's not everything, but it's sure as hell enough to tell that that cop was out of line. A video tape can only show so much - and it showed enough to indicate that the second tasing was police brutality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidently it wasn't if you look at the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point is not that we should trust the cop - but that we just don't know what the situation was like by seeing one video clip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if you don't know what the situation is, why are you defending the officer's actions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry - I live in America where its innocent until PROVEN guilty - which he wasn't. What country do you live in?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you failed to read my above post? Your example of "might haves" is completely irrational and doesn't make any sense at all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His examples are only as irrational as your logic. He was applying it to various situations and illustrating the flaws in basing behaviour on the principle that someone might have something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of logic. His examples do not apply because they are OVERGENERALIZED. This situation is a situation SPECIFICALLLY where someone disobeys a direct order from a police officer - his examples were OVERGENERALIZED to any person, any car, anywhere. The logic is flawed because THIS SITUATION IS SPECIFIC. How hard is that for you to understand?

Do you know those different voltages are? Please tell me. Once again your repeated an argument that I've already proven to not make sense. If the cop just tries to use just physical force (I'm assuming you mean a baton or just his arms because a taser is PHYSICAL force) then the person could easily slam on the accelerator and get away. Why did you ignore this point? Is it because you failed to come up with a logical argument against it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even with the threat of the taser, she could've easily driven away, but she didn't now, did she?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidently it wasn't if you look at the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The outcome? It shows unnecessary application of force. I don't know what it is you don't understand there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry - I live in America where its innocent until PROVEN guilty - which he wasn't. What country do you live in?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, innocent until proven guilty? Then why was she tased without a single shred of proof that she was a threat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of logic. His examples do not apply because they are OVERGENERALIZED. This situation is a situation SPECIFICALLLY where someone disobeys a direct order from a police officer - his examples were OVERGENERALIZED to any person, any car, anywhere. The logic is flawed because THIS SITUATION IS SPECIFIC. How hard is that for you to understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How hard is it for you to understand? Regardless of this overgeneralisation crap, he was using YOUR logic and applying it to situations, showing the inaccuracy and flaws within such principles.

Even with the threat of the taser, she could've easily driven away, but she didn't now, did she?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What threat?....I believe that he did taze her....Not threaten her with a taser.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, innocent until proven guilty? Then why was she tased without a single shred of proof that she was a threat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh man....you really aren't that smart are you? We have gone over this...maybe you forgot....here you go....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BREAKING THE LAW AND THEN DISOBEYING A COP NORAMLLY MEANS YOU ARE A THREAT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How hard is it for you to understand? Regardless of this overgeneralisation crap, he was using YOUR logic and applying it to situations, showing the inaccuracy and flaws within such principles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point of this statement is wrong...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you mean MY logic, he was backing it up....read often?

 

Do you know those different voltages are? Please tell me. Once again your repeated an argument that I've already proven to not make sense. If the cop just tries to use just physical force (I'm assuming you mean a baton or just his arms because a taser is PHYSICAL force) then the person could easily slam on the accelerator and get away. Why did you ignore this point? Is it because you failed to come up with a logical argument against it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even with the threat of the taser, she could've easily driven away, but she didn't now, did she?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidently it wasn't if you look at the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The outcome? It shows unnecessary application of force. I don't know what it is you don't understand there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry - I live in America where its innocent until PROVEN guilty - which he wasn't. What country do you live in?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, innocent until proven guilty? Then why was she tased without a single shred of proof that she was a threat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of logic. His examples do not apply because they are OVERGENERALIZED. This situation is a situation SPECIFICALLLY where someone disobeys a direct order from a police officer - his examples were OVERGENERALIZED to any person, any car, anywhere. The logic is flawed because THIS SITUATION IS SPECIFIC. How hard is that for you to understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How hard is it for you to understand? Regardless of this overgeneralisation crap, he was using YOUR logic and applying it to situations, showing the inaccuracy and flaws within such principles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) When he actually used the taser should could not drive away. If he tried to use just his hands she couuld have. You're wrong there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) The outcome- meaning the police officer was let off. You are wrong to think otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) She was tasered for disobeying a direct order. There is proof of her disobeying a direct order if you watch the video. That is against the law. You are wrong about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) I'm sorry but he did NOT use my logic because MY logic does NOT overgeneralize and his does. That is my point. His logic overgeneralizes and mine doesn't. You are wrong about that as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any more questions?

 

Even with the threat of the taser, she could've easily driven away, but she didn't now, did she?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What threat?....I believe that he did taze her....Not threaten her with a taser.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He did threaten. He said that if she didn't get out of the car he would tase her. Watch the video before assuming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, innocent until proven guilty? Then why was she tased without a single shred of proof that she was a threat?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh man....you really aren't that smart are you? We have gone over this...maybe you forgot....here you go....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BREAKING THE LAW AND THEN DISOBEYING A COP NORAMLLY MEANS YOU ARE A THREAT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey toots, I'M COMPLETELY AWARE OF THAT. But I was using GhostRanger's logic and showing how it was flawed because it is, in essence, speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How hard is it for you to understand? Regardless of this overgeneralisation crap, he was using YOUR logic and applying it to situations, showing the inaccuracy and flaws within such principles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The whole point of this statement is wrong...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you mean MY logic, he was backing it up....read often?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, whoever's logic it was, it was proven to be flawed through examples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) When he actually used the taser should could not drive away. If he tried to use just his hands she couuld have. You're wrong there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, I'm not. I said the THREAT of a taser. He said that if she didn't get off the phone he'd tase her. That's the threat. She could've driven away, but didn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) She was tasered for disobeying a direct order. There is proof of her disobeying a direct order if you watch the video. That is against the law. You are wrong about that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, she broke the law. Yes, she made a mistake. But your logic of innocent until proven guilty is not applied; there was no proof of her being a threat, yet she was still punished/reprimanded; thus she was guilty without proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) I'm sorry but he did NOT use my logic because MY logic does NOT overgeneralize and his does. That is my point. His logic overgeneralizes and mine doesn't. You are wrong about that as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could you explain to me this overgenerilisation thing again? Because it really doesn't seem to be making much sense.

 

 

 

Once again you show a complete lack of understanding of logic. His examples do not apply because they are OVERGENERALIZED. This situation is a situation SPECIFICALLLY where someone disobeys a direct order from a police officer - his examples were OVERGENERALIZED to any person, any car, anywhere. The logic is flawed because THIS SITUATION IS SPECIFIC. How hard is that for you to understand?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I - wrongfully - presumed that I could type "speeding" and trust to the context of the discussion to translate that into something a bit more exact. Obviously, that didn't work, so let's replace it with a much longer, but more specifically tailored, sentence;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"In fact, anyone speeding, stopping, handing over the correct documentation to the officer, remaining at the scene, and then refusing to step out of the car - and not driving away while the tazer is pointed at you, despite having just as much of a chance to do so as if he had reached inside and tried to pull her out - *MAY* be transporting explosives to be used in terrorist acts, so we should just blow them up! "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I getting specific enough for you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Refusing to obey direct instructions invokes force. Refusing to obey direct instructions from an officer does not mean you should be treated as if you're armed, because of the sudden refusal (after a few minutes of compliance, albeit not exactly happy, quick or silent). And if it does, which MyPurpleCrayon appeared to believe, what makes this refusal - in this specific situation - equal her having a concealed firearm, and not say, concealed explosives? And if that refusal warrants a response as if she had a concealed weapon, why doesn't the same refusal warrant a response as if she had concealed explosives? I'd say it's because she wasn't -and shouldn't have been - tazed because she *might* have a gun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disobeying a direct order warrants the use of force, and force should be used to assure compliance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to counter the suspect producing a concealed weapon. Which the originial post I responded to by MyPurpleCrayon suggested; Taze her because she might have a concealed weapon.

i live in palm beach county , florida.