Cop Tasers Fleeing Handcuffed Girl, Head injuries put her in vegetative state
- Thread starter slopeslider
- Start date
There are a few ways that this could have been avoided. The main one being her not trying to run. Another would be for the cop to not allow her to escape his custody. But saying that its the cops fault that she fell on her head is pure ignorance. Her becoming brain dead is a freak accident not forseen in any way.GoaThief said:
Most guidelines state that the use of non-lethal force can be used if necessary. Tazers ARE non-lethal force like I said above its a freak accident that she became brain dead.
There is actually someone on quite a few pages calling the cop a fat slob. Maybe you've seen him in this thread? Well he keeps saying that the person should have just been let go and picked up at a later time. Well as you said above about following the guidelines. They prohibit that and the cop would be reprimanded for allowing a suspect to get away.
1) The tazer isn't prevalent in the US. My dad is a cop and they have not been issued tazers and are not going to be issued tazers anytime soon.GoaThief said:
2) Grabbing her with his pudgy little hands as you put it would also lead to her getting slammed to the ground. Because that is procedure. So there is also a chance that she could have ended up as a vegetable if he did what you had stated.
3) Weak and non-violent? She is wanted in connection to 2 hit and runs and has also tested positive for drugs multiple times. Just because it is a woman does not make her weak and non-violent. You have no idea what she did to get away from him in the first place and usually to be able to bolt like that you have to use some amount of force to get out of the officer's grip already.
And, in turn, one of those 'everyone jumps to defend CRIMINALS who ACCIDENTALLY hurt themselves because we feel all cops are bad' threads.oktalist said:
Like you.
And please, don't say 'oh I didn't say that'...because you did. You said it in how you say NOTHING but abuse for the 'criminal incompetent cop' when A) he was neither and B) you have no evidence, but make the claim anyway like somehow you know better.
YOUR words say that you Do Not Care about the cop- you care about the criminal and feel that no matter what criminals do, you'll make excuses for it and blame the cop.
It very much can be foreseen in every possible way, especially by those who are trained in taser use and have very clear usage guidelines in place.Krion_Vark said:
Stop being ignorant and get educated, as has already been covered (even on this page) - tasers are "less lethal" not "non-lethal".
No, it's far from being a freak accident (see above) although I will agree that the officer probably did not wish to cause brain death. Hence why if this were to go to public court a charge of manslaughter would be more appropriate rather than murder.
By all appearances, they'd be correct in saying this. I digress;
In fact there are guidelines that state it is perfectly acceptable to allow a suspect to get away if capturing them would result in needless danger to the public. Perusing a suspect on foot across a busy highway might indeed be covered by this.
One person does not people make, though.
Again, there are many other and more appropriate actions this officer could have taken to avoid her injury.
lolSmashLovesTitanQuest said:
The cop shot a tazer at a handcuffed person, it's not the same thing as a cop making use of his service gun.
Two different situations. Two different levels of lethality. Two different complaints about the cop's procedure.
And unloading 10 shots is perfectly reasonable. Trust me.
I did not defend the actions of the criminal. Or does pointing out that someone shouldn't have been maimed count as defending their actions?Rottweiler said:
If you think that a criminal accidenally hurting themselves is less bad than an innocent person hurting themselves, then I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
You are right, I don't care much about this police officer. Pretty much because he's still got a working brain. I don't wish any harm upon him, but I wouldn't defend his actions any more than I would defend the criminal's actions.
I was just pointing out how these sorts of threads quickly come to be dominated by the highly vocal cops-are-always-right crowd, who like to complain about how everyone else thinks cops are always wrong. I haven't looked at the evidence and I fully admit that I might be wrong in this case, but I was mainly commenting about these sorts of cases in general.
Yes, you did. Was it the policeman's fault the criminal ran, was tased according to policies, and accidentally fell and hurt themselves? According to you, the 'criminally incompetent cop' is at fault.
You attached no responsibility to the criminal, and by definition and by your own words, placed all blame on the Cop. You. Defended. The Criminal.
If that *isn't* your intent, you need to clarify that.
That wasn't the issue. A person accidentally hurting themselves isn't 'criminal incompetence' on the part of the police, though. YOU used the term, and rather obviously meant to paint the police officer as the offender for an *accident*.
Really? You have not said one word about the criminal- BUT you have labeled the police officer as 'criminally incompetent'.
'Criminal' = Guilty of a Crime. You have labeled the officer as being the perpetrator of a Crime.
And, by common sense, if you *blame* the Cop...you are *defending* the criminal who got hurt, because (though you haven't really explained how) the Cop shoulda coulda woulda done 'something' and the criminal 'wouldn't have gotten hurt'. Somehow.
And you are correct, in that there are as many 'police-are-always-right' people as there are 'police-are-always-wrong' people. The problem I had is that you have shown yourself by your comments, whether you intended or not, to be in the 'police-are-always-wrong' faction, and I have responded to that. If you don't intend to be taken that way, you should be more careful in your comments involving 'criminally incompetent'.
DarthSka said:
...wat. Seriously?thaluikhain said:
There is no such thing as a warning shot. If a police officer draws their firearm, it's with intent to use deadly force. Period. Under no other circumstances are they permitted to draw it.
My comment was a dig at all of the people who complain that there was no warning shot before the cops shot somebody. Those people are stupid.
She slipped one of the handcuffs off while she was in the cruiser. Later on, she put them back on.Liquidacid23 said:
I'm quoting from the linked article with Officer Cole's comment regarding the handcuff's location at the substation:
Office Cole is admitting that he was not properly monitoring Danielle Maudsley.
Ok a lesson about warning shots, if you fire a gun into the air, the bullet come back down with more then enough force to kill someone. Also firing it into the ground can in turn ricochet and kill someone to. Now while it's about as rare as smashing your head into the ground when you get tazzed, people HAVE been killed by it. It's CRIMINAL to fire an gun up in the air anywhere near an city or town.
Warning shots are just BS cops do in the movies
Warning shots are just BS cops do in the movies
Haha that was funny. Takes a special kind of stupid to run when in handcuffs would have been better if the tazer wasn't used and she fell on her own. For those people feeling sorry for her don't worry the police officer will be in trouble because when people are in the handcuffs its the officers responsibility for their safety.
But slowly my plans for removing all the stupid people in the world is starting.
But slowly my plans for removing all the stupid people in the world is starting.
So he's fat and can't run.. If he's fat and can't run then it was right to use the tazer if he knew he couldn't catch her. Would you rather of just let her get away and risk a heart attack by running after her?
Why are cops always so afraid of Internal Investigations? Is it because they are all corrupt? No, they are simply ideally placed to know that being the subject of a police investigation is bad news whether you are guilty or not. When your job is to find criminals, everyone you see is just a criminal you haven't found any evidence against yet. And every object is just a piece of evidence which you haven't worked out how it incriminates your suspect yet.