I shall wade into this. I fear for my sanity.
Blablahb said:
They were talking back to me. How dare they upset the authoritarian order where the one in uniform is always right.
Obviously false comparison, being put under arrest for charges unknown cannot be linked to "talking back" in severity. Comparing the upholding of written legislation the "authoritarian order" is also an obviously false comparsion. Jesus its like youre trying to be intellectually dishonest. You might believe what you say but making obviously false points to prove it is just low.
Much like running away, talking is clearly a good grounds for beating someone up mercilessly, don't you agree? Actually, talking to someone and disagreeing with them is obviously more agressive than running away, so it's an even better reason.
Strawman. No one is trying to defend beating someone up mercilessly. Again comparison to nothing. Id say the employment of a single tazor shot is not the same as a merciless malicious beating with intent to hurt. Again obviously false comparison. You are attacking points no one has made. But please if you want to redeem yourself find someone in the thread who advocated malicious and brutal purposefull violence toward the subject. Ill give you time.
I wasn't aware that in the US trials had been abolished for charges other than terrorism and copyright infringement as well. Since when has that been?
Trials are awesome. The woman would have got one. If she was innocent the trial would have shown that and the woman had nothing to fear. I might be presumptuous in saying this but fleeing is usually an admission of guilt. As such its the officers duty to detain the suspect so they can be BROUGHT to trial.
Exactly. Just about everybody gets caught later on anyway, or report themselves because living a fugitive sucks.
This is just factually incorrect. By your logic this list cannot exist.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted
People would rather be fugitives than punished for their crimes. This list proves that. Again obviously false arguement.
She had cuffs on and was running *away*. How can that possibly be violent? And she's dead. How could the violence not be deadly? Besides, like others have already argued, even US policeman are trained to understand what tasing someone does. That policeman made a concious decision to expose someone to grave harm, resulting in death, rather than trying to run after her.
Yay another strawman. And youre purposefully misreading posts now. NOT PEACEFULL does NOT mean violent. It means not peacefull. Please dont make such obvious jumps in logic and reading. When he said not peacefull. He meant anything that wasnt a calm collected reaction. That counts fleeing and screaming when remaining calm and collected is a better way to prove innocence. Id hardly call being tazed "grave harm". I dont defend his actions at all to be honest. I kind of agree with you. But i refuse to see my points argued so poorly and dishonestly. He should have chased her. And should have been fit enough to do so. However the tazor is NOT grave harm is is often used without grave harm being inflicted. Like VERY often. 99.99% of tazor uses dont result in death.
Which is tied to rules. Rules like "Don't kill people if you can just grab a hold of them". Although obviously, that rule didn't make it into the US police handbook. Much like was shown in the summary executions of Kenneth Harding and Michael Nida, and many other cases of weapon-crazed US cops shooting first and checking if it was allowed later.
False comparison. "Dont kill people if you can grab them" was never an issue in this case. It doesnt apply at all. He never made a decision of "grab or kill" ever. And the way you use that implies that it was. It was not. The decision was "taze or grab" and your line should read "Dont use a little more force if you can use less force" since thats exactly what happened here. I mean christ she hit her head. ANY method by which he brought her to the ground could have resulted in that. Any. Shes hardly going to go down easily when panniced and running.
I hate guns too.
Which is why he should be sacked from the police, and convicted for manslaughter, but not murder.
Yay we have the same conclusion. Yep it was manslaughter. Complete accident but it basically was. She died by his fault even if it was a COMPLETE accident. Because it was avoidable. Not murder. Not "KILLING!" but accidental death. It happens. Its sad. He should be convited and kicked out of the force for being incapable of catching suspects without using a tazor.
That's not true. He used something close to maximal violence to aprehend her. The only more violent option would've been to draw his firearm and perform an extrajudicial execution on the spot.
When the THREE options are.
1. Grab and tackle
2. Tazor.
3. Shoot to injure
4. Shoot to kill
Tazor is actually pretty far down the slider. Its WAY below shoot to injure. Its the least violent option one can do from afar. And option one had an equal chance of her hitting her head as options 2 3 and 4. Not a lot he can do to make sure she falls ok. Tackling is safest ill give you but tazing is hardly "maximal violence". Its pretty damn far down. I mean it just hurts like hell for 99.99% of people, it doesnt cause any lasting harm.
I made it.
You have a valid point but everything you say is either a strawman, an obviously wrong comparison or just made up stuff. Stop mis reading posts, making up points and drawing wrong comparisons. Its annoying and not intellectually honest.
