THERE ARE LAWS, FOLLOW THEM, THE COPS ENFORCE THE LAWS, LISTEN TO THEM(unless it is something they should not be asking for), IF YOU BREAK THE LAWS AND DO NOT LISTEN TO THE ENFORCERS IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT YOU KNEW THEM. SORRY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She deserved it, she could have listened to the cop at the start.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's where you're missing the point:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The refusal warrants a response as though she is dangerous. Dangerous is over course dependent on where she is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saying she might have explosives in her car and be reaady to use this is possible - but what we ccall in the world of rhetoric HYPERBOLE. Its not likely. The cop is suppose to respond to what is likely to happen for the worst, so that it doesn't happen. Just this past April where I live, a cop was shot at when he pulled someone over for speeding. It happens often enough for a cop to suspect it coming when his orders are being refused. However, cars being blown up when they are pulled over for speeding does not happen often in America.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, your point however does bring something else up. If this was in Iraq, and the person was sitting in their car acting suspcious. They would be pulled out of their car with force, because their car being blown up is likely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As an officer, you respond to the LIKELY dangerous situation. It would be ridiculous and ILLOGICAL to assume that there are explosives in a car, but it would be completely LOGICAL to assume the person pulled over has a concealed gun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay then I misread your sentence. But it doesn't matter because if you are only talking about teh THREAT and the not the ACTION then you are not actually combating what I said. I was speaking of action. People often don't want to run from a cop until the last minute possible - and only if they really have to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not how it works in the field. Its not innocent until proven guilty if you use force against her that doesn't kill her. If there is enough reason for the cop to feel in danger then he uses appropriate force against her - despite the fact that we don't have an improtu courtroom out on the field. Your argument here doesn't even make sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about how the cop is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Which, by the way, he was let off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I mean by overgeneralization is just because you use the same form of logic, it doesn't mean that it is applicable to the situation. For instance, if I were using a enthemyme in my argument, I could say this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Brown cows who have been abused growing up often attack people when they are teased.

 

 

 

-My uncle was attacked by a brown cow who was abused growing up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your logical conclusion is that my uncle teased a brown cow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if I were to overgeneralize the second situation and make it say:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-My uncle was attacked by a cow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or even:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-My uncle was attacked by a brown cow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those situations do not draw you to a LOGICAL conclusion that my uncle teased the brown cow based off the first sentence, because those cases are overly generalized to just cows, or just brown cows - then first sentence refers specifically to brown cows who have been abused growing up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this situation, you can't just say "any car pulled over might have explosives" because this is a specific case of someone ignoring police orders. (Read the first part of this post as well if you don't understand the logical fallacy of using hyperbole).

 

 

 

The refusal warrants a response as though she is dangerous. Dangerous is over course dependent on where she is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strangely enough, I'll answer that with: Generally speaking, a refusal is an indication of danger. In this specific case...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She's pulled over, she'd remained at the location, she's handed over her license and registration, she has been left alone in her car for more than 40 seconds but when the officer walks up he doesn't get his face blown off, he opens the car door without getting his face off blown off while she's talkin on the phone, and he reaches inside without getting shot...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How likely - in this specific case - do you figure it is he's going to get shot within the next 60 seconds after he has his taser pointed at her? And is opening the door and reaching inside like that the actions of an officer expecting a concealed weapon? If you were to speculate on whether he [The police officer] considered it likely she was going to pull a concealed weapon on him, what does the imagery tell you?

 

 

 

 

The refusal warrants a response as though she is dangerous. Dangerous is over course dependent on where she is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strangely enough, I'll answer that with: Generally speaking, a refusal is an indication of danger. In this specific case...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

She's pulled over, she'd remained at the location, she's handed over her license and registration, she has been left alone in her car for more than 40 seconds but when the officer walks up he doesn't get his face blown off, he opens the car door without getting his face off blown off while she's talkin on the phone, and he reaches inside without getting shot...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How likely - in this specific case - do you figure it is he's going to get shot within the next 60 seconds after he has his taser pointed at her? And is opening the door and reaching inside like that the actions of an officer expecting a concealed weapon? If you were to speculate on whether he [The police officer] considered it likely she was going to pull a concealed weapon on him, what does the imagery tell you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is fine to analyze it afterwards and decide whether or not it was the best course of action. But when you are in the field, its better safe than sorry. I'm not going to say there were not better methods of handling the situation - but I do not believe that his method was wrong. When you are in the field and are presented with a situation that you have been trained to believe could be dangerous...then you act accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what if the cop pulls the taser out and sees that she does nothing and so he decides she isn't dangerous and he puts the taser away. Who is to say that isn't what she was hoping would happen? Who isn't to say that doing something like that will teach dangerous criminals that if they ignore cops but don't wait it out - then the cop will never use force on them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's like teaching your kids by saying "if you take that cookie then you have to go to your room." And then when they take the cookie, you for some reason or another decide to not send them to their room. The cop told her what was going to happen if she didn't get out and she ignored it. So he did what he said he would. I would be worried if criminals knew that they could just wait out a cops empty threat.

 

 

 

If you were to speculate on whether he [The police officer] considered it likely she was going to pull a concealed weapon on him, what does the imagery tell you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It tells me that he didn't have enough time to actually speculate the entire situation when it was happening. It is probably a lot harder not to react like this, and not to assume something bad is going to happen, while it is going on. Which is a huge reason I think no one here has a right to judge him and what he did, because no one knows everything that went on. It is his job to protect himself, and the civilians around him, and he didn't want to take any chances...obviously.

Even for a criminal who killed 50 man. Unless this person decide to fight with the cops, this person won't suffer as much as she does right there both mentaly and physicaly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am sure during the training the trainers have taught them when to use the stun gun in a professional way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neither

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the trainers are bad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that guy is a moron

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't even handle a fragile woman...what a loser. He should get fired for can't even think of the safest and the easiest solution to a simple situation like this. There are 2 cops, together they can simply force her out of the car without hurting her. Pfff, those tax money are wasted on failure like him.

You get a 5-10,000 volt shock when you get shocked by a doorknob. It's not the voltage that matters as much as it is the amperage. Not only is 50,000 volts actually very low for a standard taser, most police issued tasers utilize very low amperage as well. Hardly excessive force.

You get a 5-10,000 volt shock when you get shocked by a doorknob. It's not the voltage that matters as much as it is the amperage. Not only is 50,000 volts actually very low for a standard taser, most police issued tasers utilize very low amperage as well. Hardly excessive force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was hoping someone would say something like that. I wasn't sure about its actual danger so I didn't say anything but I had my suspicions...

 

You get a 5-10,000 volt shock when you get shocked by a doorknob. It's not the voltage that matters as much as it is the amperage. Not only is 50,000 volts actually very low for a standard taser, most police issued tasers utilize very low amperage as well. Hardly excessive force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was hoping someone would say something like that. I wasn't sure about its actual danger so I didn't say anything but I had my suspicions...

I don't know if those numbers are exactly right but I do know that at the voltage the officer used it is practically impossible for any kind of permanent phsical damage to occur. In fact almost all effects are gone after a minute or two.

 

You get a 5-10,000 volt shock when you get shocked by a doorknob. It's not the voltage that matters as much as it is the amperage. Not only is 50,000 volts actually very low for a standard taser, most police issued tasers utilize very low amperage as well. Hardly excessive force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was hoping someone would say something like that. I wasn't sure about its actual danger so I didn't say anything but I had my suspicions...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said that back on page seven :P

I said that back on page seven :P

Well said too. I just read the first 3 or 4 posts about excessive force and decided the other 8 pages probably wasn't worth reading.

 

 

You get a 5-10,000 volt shock when you get shocked by a doorknob. It's not the voltage that matters as much as it is the amperage. Not only is 50,000 volts actually very low for a standard taser, most police issued tasers utilize very low amperage as well. Hardly excessive force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was hoping someone would say something like that. I wasn't sure about its actual danger so I didn't say anything but I had my suspicions...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said that back on page seven :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't ignore it on purpose...I promise. :P