Cop not taking control

**sooners04** · 08-20-2008, 02:15 PM

This cop should have taken MORE control of a citizen with warrants. Maybe she didn't want to be criticized for being rude or a shithead cop, but guess who payed for her professional attitude. The original video shows how the cop was OVERLY nice and MORE than accommodating to this man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp3bt0GwVJw

**xlxBigSexyxlx** · 08-20-2008, 02:28 PM

"baby I can't go to jail..."

nice role model for your kids

What scum....

On a side note, c'mon now guys... ya know, all these threads

**T3/T4 GSR** · 08-20-2008, 03:12 PM

Call me a dickhead but I laughed my ass off...

**Skully44420** · 08-20-2008, 03:39 PM

thats just fvcked...yeah i dont like cops much...but to do that to a defenseless woman?...i mean look how big that dude is...yeah scum for sure...now look what his daughter has to live with...he's better off dead

**DSM4Life** · 08-20-2008, 04:43 PM

Cop is lucky to be alive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbyFnrtUtJQ

**gixxerboy1** · 08-20-2008, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Skully44420

thats just fvcked...yeah i dont like cops much...but to do that to a defenseless woman?...i mean look how big that dude is...yeah scum for sure...now look what his daughter has to live with...he's better off dead

i agree he is a scumbag and deserves to be in jail. BUT she wasnt a defenseless woman. And if you killed a real defenseless woman you wouldnt get 60 years in jail like he did

**40plusnewbie** · 08-20-2008, 07:06 PM

I've been critical of cops in this forum (if you have read what cops have done to me you should be empathetic). Cops have dangerous jobs. I'm not against cops, per se, I'm against the ever increasing powers they are granted/duties they are assigned with.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if cops were simply assigned to respond to reports of violence and reports of theft (and throw in some times when they see reckless behavior like swerving like a drunk driver) and otherwise did not interact with citizens to give tickets or whatever, EVERYONE WOULD LOVE THEM.

Who is NOT going to love a person who puts their LIFE ON THE LINE to, at a moments notice, rush to the scene of a report of someone with a weapon threatening the lives of others? My god, that makes them HERO's. If all cops did was that kind of thing EVERYONE WOULD LOVE THEM.

Look at fire fighters, they sit on their asses a lot and respond to a lot of bs calls where some old lady is lonely so she calls 911, or some small stove smoke issue. They have a cakewalk job and get a pension after 20 years like cops. And on top of that, at least some of them work 24 hour shifts. I have a relative that works one 24 hour shift like every 4 days or something, that is his FULL TIME JOB. That includes a nights sleep if they don't get called. Does anyone hate firemen or bitch about them? No.

The issue is that cops are assigned to be put in citizens business more and more, and as far as i can tell they are not actively resisting this, they are embracing this. (except www.leap.cc the best cops on the planet).

**zimmy** · 08-21-2008, 09:50 AM

Look at fire fighters, they sit on their asses a lot and respond to a lot of bs calls where some old lady is lonely so she calls 911, or some small stove smoke issue. They have a cakewalk job and get a pension after 20 years like cops. And on top of that, at least some of them work 24 hour shifts. I have a relative that works one 24 hour shift like every 4 days or something, that is his FULL TIME JOB. That includes a nights sleep if they don't get called. Does anyone hate firemen or bitch about them? No.

Know any ? I don't mean to thread hijack...because this is just not true. They do get alot of bs calls...but they also respond to medical emergancy calls and they do risk there lives to put fires out to protect our property adn occassionaly our loved ones. Talk to one and ask em about how many corpses they have seen.

**thegodfather** · 08-21-2008, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by sooners04

This cop should have taken MORE control of a citizen with warrants. Maybe she didn't want to be criticized for being rude or a shithead cop, but guess who payed for her professional attitude. The original video shows how the cop was OVERLY nice and MORE than accommodating to this man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp3bt0GwVJw

I dont think that any rational person would defend the actions of this criminal or that they would question that more force was warranted in this situation. In the same respect, I can't see how a rational person would agree with

*Tazing a 14 year old high school student who got in a fight in school

*Frank Lasser, 82 years old, tazed by police officers while he was in a hospital bed.

*11 year Thaliamar Jimenez tazed in elementary school for striking a deputy in the face.

*NYPD officer knocking a bicyclist from his bike and injuring him for no appearent reason.

the list goes on and on. These are not RATIONAL things, and if the courts do not agree that their use of force was warranted, how can you justify it to us? You compare apples to oranges! A police officer who was warranted in using appropriate force(via force continium), and an officer who used force beyond what was necessary, are two completely different things.

Sooners, I want your specific response to this one question. The tazer was designed to be used IN LIEU OF DEADLY FORCE. Meaning, that a tazer is the last resort to using your sidearm. This means that the ONLY time a tazer is justifiably used is when the officers life is in danger or another human beings. So then, in all cases where a taser was used as a "convienient" method of subduing a person so that the officer did not have to use physical force, this would be a case a blatant excessive force and the officer would be breaking the law? Would you not agree with that?

Tazers are dangerous weapons. They have caused over 100 deaths so far. A tazer is not a non-lethal weapon, it is a LESS THAN LETHAL WEAPON. The tazer is only permitted to be used in a situation where the officer would have otherwise drew his firearm and ended the suspects life.

**sooners04** · 08-21-2008, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Sooners, I want your specific response to this one question. The tazer was designed to be used IN LIEU OF DEADLY FORCE. Meaning, that a tazer is the last resort to using your sidearm. This means that the ONLY time a tazer is justifiably used is when the officers life is in danger or another human beings. So then, in all cases where a taser was used as a "convienient" method of subduing a person so that the officer did not have to use physical force, this would be a case a blatant excessive force and the officer would be breaking the law? Would you not agree with that?

Tazers are dangerous weapons. They have caused over 100 deaths so far. A tazer is not a non-lethal weapon, it is a LESS THAN LETHAL WEAPON. The tazer is only permitted to be used in a situation where the officer would have otherwise drew his firearm and ended the suspects life.

Well I agree with you too some extent on the taser. My city's police department is the only department in the state that DOES NOT have tasers. The taser can be used wherever the Chief/Sheriff places it on the force continuum. Some departments would rather tase someone than get into a wrestling match and the officer/suspect or both get injured and then both take money from the city. There are plenty of situations where people would be DEAD right now from gun shots that are still alive because of a taser. The examples you give of people dying from tasers is probably accurate except you are forgetting that many of those people were on some kind of intoxication substance that the taser just made stronger per se. Over 100 deaths, but how many lives have been saved due to not being shot? What percentage is 100 deaths to the number of times it's been used? Our Chief cannot decide where to put it in the force continuum so our department doesn't have one, until someone gets shot and dies when they could have been tased and lived, then the family sues and owns the city, then we MIGHT get tasers.

**thegodfather** · 08-21-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by sooners04

Well I agree with you too some extent on the taser. My city's police department is the only department in the state that DOES NOT have tasers. The taser can be used wherever the Chief/Sheriff places it on the force continuum. Some departments would rather tase someone than get into a wrestling match and the officer/suspect or both get injured and then both take money from the city. There are plenty of situations where people would be DEAD right now from gun shots that are still alive because of a taser. The examples you give of people dying from tasers is probably accurate except you are forgetting that many of those people were on some kind of intoxication substance that the taser just made stronger per se. Over 100 deaths, but how many lives have been saved due to not being shot? What percentage is 100 deaths to the number of times it's been used? Our Chief cannot decide where to put it in the force continuum so our department doesn't have one, until someone gets shot and dies when they could have been tased and lived, then the family sues and owns the city, then we MIGHT get tasers.

Please see the article below..

Originally Posted by Article

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Autopsy results released this week reveal why a 17-year-old who police shot with a Taser died in March.

Darryl Turner was in an altercation with his boss at the Food Lion on Prosperity Church Road in north Charlotte when someone called police. Police said he was highly agitated when an officer shot him with a Taser. Turner was pronounced dead at the hospital a short time later.

Turner's autopsy says the stress of the situation and the shock from the Taser was too much for his body to handle. It says he died of acute ventricular dysrhythmia and ventricular fibrillation. In other words, his heart was pumping so fast and irregularly that he died.

The report states Turner did not have heart problems and he didn't have drugs in his system except for the medicines emergency workers used trying to save his life.

Turner's grandfather, Donald Fontenot, saw the report and said he's angry."

Very much so. Why wouldn't I be? You know, you take a 17-year-old child away," he said.

Turner's family has not said whether they plan to sue police. They hired an attorney in March after a witness said Turner was obeying the officer’s commands when he was shocked. Police said Turner had been threatening the officer.

Police are doing their own internal investigation to see if the officer who used the Taser followed the rules. That officer is back on active duty after being put on administrative leave following the incident.

I'm sure Darryl Turner, if he were alive right now, would disagree with your assessment that tasers save lives because cops dont need to shoot people. In this case, the cop did not need to shoot him with a firearm, and therefore did not need to shoot him with a taser. There were no drugs in his system. If you were in court right now, and you stated that tasers usually kill people who are intoxicated, I would say "Objection...calls for the witness to reach a medical conclusion..." Only a medical expert can make statements to the lethality of the taser, and they have. Medical examiners across the country have ruled deaths the result of tasers, only to be sued by Taser Inc., to change their expert medical opinion. I would say that in and of itself is enough evidence that something is ary.

I would say it puts police between a rock and a hard place. The officers primary goal is to preserve his own life, but he is also charged with PROTECTING the citizenry, even if it means from himself.

To be quite honest Sooners...I would much rather see officers use deadly force against people who are a threat to the officers life or someone elses, then to have the taser available to "save" those deadly threats, while at the same time killing innocent people who posed a lesser threat, but who police decided they would rather subdue with a taser then have to get off of their fat ass's and subdue with some muscle.

**40plusnewbie** · 08-21-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by zimmy

[IMG]Look at fire fighters, they sit on their asses a lot and respond to a lot of bs calls where some old lady is lonely so she calls 911, or some small stove smoke issue. They have a cakewalk job and get a pension after 20 years like cops. And on top of that, at least some of them work 24 hour shifts. I have a relative that works one 24 hour shift like every 4 days or something, that is his FULL TIME JOB. That includes a nights sleep if they don't get called. Does anyone hate firemen or bitch about them? No.[/IMG] Know any ? I don't mean to thread hijack...because this is just not true. They do get alot of bs calls...but they also respond to medical emergancy calls and they do risk there lives to put fires out to protect our property adn occassionaly our loved ones. Talk to one and ask em about how many corpses they have seen.

Dude, did you miss the part where I said I have a relative who is one. My brother in law is a firefighter. Chill.

**sooners04** · 08-21-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Please see the article below..

I'm sure Darryl Turner, if he were alive right now, would disagree with your assessment that tasers save lives because cops dont need to shoot people. In this case, the cop did not need to shoot him with a firearm, and therefore did not need to shoot him with a taser. There were no drugs in his system. If you were in court right now, and you stated that tasers usually kill people who are intoxicated, I would say "Objection...calls for the witness to reach a medical conclusion..." Only a medical expert can make statements to the lethality of the taser, and they have. Medical examiners across the country have ruled deaths the result of tasers, only to be sued by Taser Inc., to change their expert medical opinion. I would say that in and of itself is enough evidence that something is ary.

I would say it puts police between a rock and a hard place. The officers primary goal is to preserve his own life, but he is also charged with PROTECTING the citizenry, even if it means from himself.

To be quite honest Sooners...I would much rather see officers use deadly force against people who are a threat to the officers life or someone elses, then to have the taser available to "save" those deadly threats, while at the same time killing innocent people who posed a lesser threat, but who police decided they would rather subdue with a taser then have to get off of their fat ass's and subdue with some muscle.

The lawsuit's that come from deadly force situations have been much less due to tasers. You gave ONE example of a horrible situation, where there are MANY positives that happen as well. Just like you said, rock and a hard place, the bottom line in ANY government is about money. Taser's have been able to LESSEN the number of lawsuits against the city due to LESS deadly force deaths. I'm not saying I agree with tasers, obviously our Chief doesn't, but they do prevent officers from beating people with physical force and or shooting them dead.

**thegodfather** · 08-21-2008, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by sooners04

The lawsuit's that come from deadly force situations have been much less due to tasers. You gave ONE example of a horrible situation, where there are MANY positives that happen as well. Just like you said, rock and a hard place, the bottom line in ANY government is about money. Taser's have been able to LESSEN the number of lawsuits against the city due to LESS deadly force deaths. I'm not saying I agree with tasers, obviously our Chief doesn't, but they do prevent officers from beating people with physical force and or shooting them dead.

I could also argue that shooting them dead saves the tax payer more money, rather then the cost to incarcerate one prisoner for one year, which burdens the tax payer to the tune of $60,000 per prisoner per year..

**JiGGaMaN** · 08-21-2008, 07:20 PM

Yeah, but how did that guy end up out of his car? If i get out of a car when a cop pulls me over, its goodnight.

**DSM4Life** · 08-21-2008, 07:51 PM

**CSAR** · 08-21-2008, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

**sooners04** · 08-22-2008, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

I could also argue that shooting them dead saves the tax payer more money, rather then the cost to incarcerate one prisoner for one year, which burdens the tax payer to the tune of $60,000 per prisoner per year..

Your missing the point about the CITY saving money not the taxpayers. The city has to pay the officer's wages if he gets hurt on duty fighting with someone, not to mention the lawsuit from the family of the person who the cop shot dead. It's not about the taxpayers, it's about the CITY government saving money. Not that it's right, but it's how they think and how they base their decisions. Taxpayers across the STATE have to pay for incarceration of criminals there is nothing you can do to prevent that. But city's can decrease lawsuits against themselves and they can decrease the number of officer's that are injured on duty this way. Plus when an officer shoots someone he/she is put on leave until the grand jury hearing, which again the city is paying money to an officer who is sitting at home because he shot someone instead of tasing them.

**40plusnewbie** · 08-22-2008, 01:06 PM

'City government' is a bunch of guys who have jobs paid for with taxpayer money. Any expenses a 'city' incurs, including lawsuits, comes from taxpayers.

And I would agree that a city can 'save money' without taxpayers saving money because no matter how much money a city or any government entity 'saves' they don't give it back to the people they got it from. They keep it and spend it on something else.

Does your police departments budget go DOWN year after year?
Does the city you work in budget go DOWN year after year?

I don't care if money comes from:

Pile A (a city)- i.e. a big pile of money taken from citizens under the threat of jail or death or...

from Pile B (a state)- i.e. a big pile of money taken from citizens under the threat of jail or death.

**sooners04** · 08-24-2008, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by 40plusnewbie

'City government' is a bunch of guys who have jobs paid for with taxpayer money. Any expenses a 'city' incurs, including lawsuits, comes from taxpayers.

And I would agree that a city can 'save money' without taxpayers saving money because no matter how much money a city or any government entity 'saves' they don't give it back to the people they got it from. They keep it and spend it on something else.

Does your police departments budget go DOWN year after year?
Does the city you work in budget go DOWN year after year?

I don't care if money comes from:

Pile A (a city)- i.e. a big pile of money taken from citizens under the threat of jail or death or...

from Pile B (a state)- i.e. a big pile of money taken from citizens under the threat of jail or death.

ALL city employees pay taxes as well. The majority of the money a city makes comes from business's. Budgets go up and down depending on the economy. Since gas is so high right now the budget for gas will have to go up, which in turn something else has to be lowered to balance it out. The city spends the MOST money on the school systems, then it goes to other things like park and recs, so your kids can play sports etc....

**40plusnewbie** · 08-27-2008, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by sooners04

The majority of the money a city makes comes from business's.

And all of that money comes from their customers. Any 'tax' on a business is passed right along to the customer (i.e. citizens).

If a city decides to double the tax on all of the businesses in that city what do you think the business owners are going to do? Do you think they are going to cash in their kids college funds to pay the increase? Then next year take out a second morgage on their home to pay the increase that year? Third year, sell their SUV's, sell their kids cars, and buy one 10 year old toyota for the family? Year 4- take out a loan to pay the increase.....

Citizens pay for EVERYTHING that is controlled by the government because government is a territorial monopoly. You pay or you die (or your allowed to choose to go to jail as a consolation prize).

If government is so great why do they need to force people to fund it by pointing a gun in their faces? Government outlaws competition against itself and will steal and/or kill anyone that tries to set up shop to compete against it. Government screws up and they just increase the ammount they force everyone to pay in order to fix their screw up. If they screw up the program established to fix the original problem they charge even more yet again to 'fix' that problem.

I wish I could operate a business that way.

Set up shop and outlaw all competition and make everyone in the territory that I deem to be mine to be my customers and pay what I say for whatever service or good I decide to provide. Buy my products or I kill you or send you to the gulag. If I loose the products prior to delivering them to you I charge you for them anyway and then charge you again for the products I actually deliver. If I hire incompetent people who don't know their ass from their elbow and they operate in a completely inefficient manner it doesn't matter, I still send out the bill collectors and get paid full rate anyway. Doesn't even matter if you want or need the services, doesn't even matter if you use them. You pay or you die.

BTW your one of the tax collectors for that operation. I know you do other things too, but that is a major part of your job whether you realize it or not. How much 'tax revenue' do you think you generate for the government based on all the arrests you make? All the hundreds of thousands that taxpayers pay for courts and jails, etc, etc. And guess what? The government has a monopoly on the crime prevention business. The more laws they make the more money they get to charge 'enforcing' them. Sure I can hire my own private security but I am still FORCED to pay for all the government crap that I don't want and don't need and that wrecks the lives of millions of people through the enforcement of victimless crimes. Just keep making up new crimes and hire guys like you to go roust people and bring them into the government prison industrial complex and then force everyone to pay for it. Pay or go to the gulag. Doesn't matter if the 'criminals' are actually hurting anyone, just keep making up crimes and keep hiring more cops and building more courts and prisons. And stick it to all the citizens.

Bet you don't like to think about your job in those terms, I don't blame you. But it does not make anything I said untrue.

No wonder why we pay more than 50% of everything we make in taxes..... BTW that makes us all 1/2 slaves.

And guess who is holding the whip?

Oh yeah, I forgot. We are allowed to put a slip in a suggestion box once every 4 years (i.e. vote). Gee that makes it so much better.

**40plusnewbie** · 08-27-2008, 09:11 PM

Where is Bojangles69 to address the points I made in the previous post and tell me how I have cops jobs mischaracterized?

**Bojangles69** · 08-27-2008, 09:16 PM

HAHA, COPS CAN NOT WIN no matter what they do.

How ironic the thread before this is about a cop being an asshole, who doesn't jeapordize his safetey, then the opposite in this thread, and neither one of them are doing their jobs "correctly".

**40plusnewbie** · 08-27-2008, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Bojangles69

HAHA, COPS CAN NOT WIN no matter what they do.

How ironic the thread before this is about a cop being an asshole, who doesn't jeapordize his safetey, then the opposite in this thread, and neither one of them are doing their jobs "correctly".

So, in other words, you have no argument to refute any of my assertions in that post?

**40plusnewbie** · 08-27-2008, 09:26 PM

1234

**Bojangles69** · 08-27-2008, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by 40plusnewbie

So, in other words, you have no argument to refute any of my assertions in that post?

I interact with a lot of people on a daily basis and occasionally meet that someone I have to get a chalkboard out to spell things for, but if you're having a difficult time:

I DO agree with you, I DO think you're incredibly smart, wonderful, brilliant and should be awared the noble prize, I'm NOT trying to "refute your assertions" and I'm def NOT 100% being sarcastic at all, and I'm DEF NOT trying to confuse you right now.

I also DO care to sit here with you all night to convice you of something that may take 400 years to do, and to take another 400 just clarifying my points. But because I think you're so above my level of intelligence, I just can't bring myself to even trying.
So forgive me when I stop responding to you, now, and maybe for however long we're both on this site for. I can only conversate with dumb people like myself.

Thank You &