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:The direct result of the above which should have been avoided.and lands on her head
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.Yes, it is fucking tragic numbnuts. That's just the thing. A life has been needlessly lost, all due to an authority figure directly ignoring guidelines put in place which should prevent incidents like this from happening. Remember that the police need to be held to a higher standard than the general public they are sworn to protect and serve.yes tragic SHE chose to take drugs and that SHE committed several crimes and then SHE chose to run from a police station resulting in getting a severe head injury
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.Please point out the multiple examples of people stating that the suspect in question should have been allowed to go free, without charge.maybe some people think that anyone who runs from cops should just be let go
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:So are you honestly going to sit there telling the world that the officer did not have the option of grabbing her with his pudgy bare hands, completely negating the need for contact with the ground (aside from feet). Calling for backup and following is also a non-option? More to the point, a taser clearly does not fit any "maximum safety" bill in that situation. A taser is one step down from using a firearm. This means that even pulling out his baton and hitting her with it is more acceptable and appropriate.DarthSka said:He had to stop her with with the option that had the least chance of hurting her.
It seems that taser use in the US is so prevalent that even the general public now think it is a perfectly acceptable method of obtaining compliance from a weak and non-violent suspect.
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:Actually it's another one of those "everyone jumps to defend criminally incompetent cop on the grounds that all cops are highly trained professionals doing an important job that puts them beyond all criticism, plus savagely beating a person is cool as long as they're a criminal" threads.will1182 said:Oh god, another one of these "HEARTLESS MONSTER COP MUNCHES ON BABY'S SKULL" threads.
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:Her becoming brain dead is a freak accident not forseen in any way.
Stop being ignorant and get educated, as has already been covered (even on this page) - tasers are "less lethal" not "non-lethal".Tazers ARE non-lethal force like I said above
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.its a freak accident that she became brain dead.
By all appearances, they'd be correct in saying this. I digress;There is actually someone on quite a few pages calling the cop a fat slob.
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.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.
lolSmashLovesTitanQuest said:Wut u on aboot govana? I never compared anything to nuffin!
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: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:Actually it's another one of those "everyone jumps to defend criminally incompetent cop on the grounds that all cops are highly trained professionals doing an important job that puts them beyond all criticism, plus savagely beating a person is cool as long as they're a criminal" threads.will1182 said:Oh god, another one of these "HEARTLESS MONSTER COP MUNCHES ON BABY'S SKULL" threads.
Like you.
And please, don't say 'oh I didn't say that'...because you did.
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.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.
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.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?
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*.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.
Really? You have not said one word about the criminal- BUT you have labeled the police officer as 'criminally incompetent'.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.
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'.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.
DarthSka said:Her brain was full of cocaine, and she was heading for a busy road. In her altered mental state, she might not have responded to the shot. He had to stop her with with the option that had the least chance of hurting her. In this situation, the taser fit that bill. The fact that it did cause her harm was simply bad luck.Kopikatsu said:Or fire a warning shot.DarthSka said:"I know that I can?t just jump on her. I?m three times her weight. If we go down, one, or both of us, is going to get hurt. The taser is the intermediate weapon of choice,"
Now, I don't know if that's what he really felt at the time, but I'm just going to go ahead and leave that explanation as justification. Hell, if he had tackled her while both of them were running and injured her, this discussion would simply be named "Cop Tackles Fleeing Handcuffed Girl, Head injuries put her in vegetative state," instead, and everyone blasting the cop would be demanding to know why he didn't just use a taser.
...wat. Seriously?thaluikhain said:Discharging a firearm randomly up in the air in a city is generally discouraged.Kopikatsu said:Or fire a warning shot. Can't please some...most people. May as well not even bother to try.
Also, if you are running from teh cops, and they start firing, RUN FASTER!
She slipped one of the handcuffs off while she was in the cruiser. Later on, she put them back on.Liquidacid23 said:Fleischer said:I'm amazed I haven't seen other people note that Officer Cole handcuffed the women with her arms in the front. Huge fail there.
no..
http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2012/february/383311/Exclusive:-Trooper-defends-tasing-new-video-shows-suspect-out-of-handcuffs.html
he DID cuff her behind properly and she slipped them around (not very hard)...
Office Cole is admitting that he was not properly monitoring Danielle Maudsley."They were in front of her, versus being behind her. So, at some point -- unbeknownst to me -- she moved them from rear to front," Cole says.
She even looks like a coke whore. Good riddance.Fleischer said:* - I checked out her Facebook [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpeople%2FDanielle-Maudsley%2F100001638773190&ei=il5AT5XYHcbe0QHnqPmnBw&usg=AFQjCNGt78Stsl6_crapw1k3y6PddudBxw], to get some idea of what kind of person she is.