Don't come bitching to me about the police state and loss of rights

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

when you can justify a woman who was no threat being tasered TWICE, once while she was already on the ground.

Don't come bitching to me when it happens to your lily white kid who might mouth off to a cop...if you justify it for one person when it is not just..you justify that treatment for anyone, including your family, for any reason.

No one bothered to ask the obvious re: the taser video...there were TWO COPS THERE...why didn't they just subdue her and cuff her?

[gratuitous]

1. Subdue her and handcuff her?

Where's the fun in that? Besides, those cops had probably already handcuffed a lot of people; no novelty in that. But a Taser shot, now that's entertainment!

[knowbody0]

2. were these officers fired?

i doubt it. she should definitely sue

[XanaDUer]

3. We seem to have devolved into a police state

ALthough I missed this latest tasering story.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Well, they did subdue her...with the Taser.

I don't have anything against the first time they shot her after they warned her over and over, but the cop should be put in jail for the second time.

[merh]

5. I don't recall them telling her what she was charged with

or that she was under arrest, but that's just me.

I also have trouble with 40 seconds of missing video, but I'm one of those silly tree hugging, civil liberty loving, left wing liberal kooks.

As I defend others civil rights, I am defending the civil rights of the cops and all those that think it was okay to tase that poor lady.

Can't help it.

[LoZoccolo]

6. 45 in a 35.

That was on the tape.

[rkc3]

8. You forgot the 3,000 pounds of diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate in the

trunk of her Toyota Celica.

[merh]

12. Wrong.

She was charged with and arrested for driving with a suspended drivers license and NON-VIOLENT resisting arrest.

Don't know what happened to the alleged speeding charge?

[tx_dem41]

13. Actually it was 51 in a 35.

I just watched the tape again.

[understandinglife]

7. Well, when we allow them "Leave No Child Unrecruited" we can hardly ....

.... expect them to tolerate any dissent.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3797148&mesg_id=3799269

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[SteppingRazor]

9. Where's a link to this?

Been hearing about it all day here. As for the cops... oh. wow. Cops sadistically beating people. Shocking.
No, really. I'm shocked.

OK, OK. I'm not. Well, actually, I am, in a way. I'm shocked people can still be outraged by this stuff. Did you miss the annoucements. Did you see what happened at the FTAA, at the WTO, at nearly any protest over the last few years you could name that didn't involve ignoring the Constitution and tossing people into a "free speech" zone?

Cops beat people. It's what they do.

Heck, I'm surprised people think cops are their friends. Police are schoolyard bullies, all grown up. If you don't believe any of that, that's fine. But ask yourself this: think of all the times you speed, all the times you don't wear a belt, have no auto insurance, or whatever other misdemeanor.
Now ask yourself, according to our system, how often am I a criminal, and how often am I a victim of a crime? If you're a criminal a lot more often, then why do you think the police are your friends?

[Retired AF Dem]

10. There is no excuse for driving without insurance

unless of course you don't own anything to lose.

[SteppingRazor]

14. I'm not excusing it.

My point is, most of are criminals a lot more than we are victims of crime. Given this, why do we still assume the police are on our side?

[tx_dem41]

15. If you're speeding you are breaking the law...

and thus a "criminal". Perhaps if you were the victim of a crash caused by a speeder that caused you to be in the hospital for a couple of weeks, you might think differently.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. With all due respect, most speeding tickets end up with a fine

and that is acceptable. I also would defend the use of force where danger IS present. I MIGHT even defend her being tasered ONCE...but after she was down she was tasered again.

This is America..we don't give the death penalty or corporal punishment for speeding and the charge against her was for non-violent resistance which only serves to buffer my interpretation that the use of force was excessive.

Even if the officer was 100% within dept policy, that then means the dept is ENCOURAGING excessive force with their policy.

[tx_dem41]

22. If you notice, I made no comment about the validity/non-validity ...

of the tasering. I was addressing the prevalent belief that speeding is not criminal.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Fair enough

although, I would argue that speeding in and of itself isn't the culprit in those cases, but reckless driving regardless of speed.

[tx_dem41]

24. The increased vehicular speed put me in the hospital for two weeks.

Allow me my sensitivity.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. OK..I will

;) (sorry to hear that)

[tx_dem41]

26. No problem.

I'm fine now. No lasting effects. Thanks! :)

[Pithlet]

11. Once again, NSMA

You nailed it!

And you're right. None of the defenders of those cops have answered that question. It's just more blathering about complying with a cops orders, as if we were defending those actions.

[Selteri]

16. Tazering for non-violence resistance

What's next, tazering for speaking out against the government?

[pocket]

17. tasering is safer than wwrestling her down

Seriously. I've been tasered and it's a lot better than getting tackled or maced. Mace is the most painful, and getting wrestled down can really injure you.

[Malikshah]

27. tell that to the folks that have died from the tasering

the numbers are on the rise.

[Robb]

28. No, we played the numbers game in another thread

Custodial lethality rates for tasers aren't higher than getting nightsticked, maced, or generally roughed up and hogtied (read: positional asphyxiation).

Tasers are simply sexier copy. Take it from a news man.

This does not, however, justify the second tasing in my opinion. Any more than another blow to the head would have been appropriate.

[Pithlet]

32. That may be true

It doesn't change the fact that NONE of those methods should be used comitting police brutality. Tasers are only in the news because they are a relatively new technology. But police brutality has always been around.

[dogday]

19. The problem is the training now. They train these officers to be

violent because of terrorism, so they just as soon take you down then deal with you. I mean you could be a terrorist you know... It is no longer protect and serve, the are supposed to be our liaisons between the people and the government. What does that tell you?

[dummy-du1]

20. You're absolutely on point

They don't use those weapons as a means of self defence, but as a torturing device. Electro shock devices are preferred by all totalitarian regimes (Saudi Arabia, China), because they're efficient and don't leave any visible traces on the body. If death occurs, the person in question had an undiscovered heart disease: Too bad.

The export of devices, that do not seem usable as self defence weapons, was recently banned by the EU. But of course it's still possible to abuse a self defence weapon, to torture people. This is discussed in more detail in this Guardian article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,,912621,00.html

"In the Alice in Wonderland of definitions, no one admits to making torture technology or using it: ergo it no longer exists. EC policymakers are aware their efforts can be scuppered by the security industry. The new EC regulations can make a welcomedifference, but only if the UN can persuade countries such as America, Taiwan, South Africa and China to follow suit rather than undermine this important step to civilising the security trade."

So, if you want to stay in the Alice in Wonderland,...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Thanks for the article

and very good point.

[Retired AF Dem]

30. I get a kick out of threads like this

people here bitch about a police state and at the same time so many say that only the police should have guns.

[Pithlet]

31. One subject has nothing to do with the other

This is about police brutality. I don't see what this has to do with gun laws. Because it is perfectly possible to have the opinion that people should be able to own guns, and still be against police brutality. I guess it's easier to paint all people on the left the same way, though.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. I get a kick out of posts like this

That claim anyone said only the police should have guns. I've certainly never said it.

[Retired AF Dem]

35. Sometime just come and visit

the gun dungeon. You will see posts like that.

[VOX]

34. I've been here for 2 1/2 years, and I've never read such a post.

In fact, it seems that a predominant number of posters here are pro-citizen gun-ownership. :shrug:

I get a kick out of posters who don't wish to disclose their gender in their profile! :bounce:

[Tomee450]

29. Things will change when

white people begin receiving some of the treatment given by police to minorities. One of my white colleagues change her tune completely after her brother was harassed by the local cops for simply talking back. They did not like his attitude. She now can't stand the police.

The cops did not use their cuffs, because they wanted to taser,to see her suffer. What some white people don't seem to realize is that laws they believe will only be used against minorities can sometimes be used against them.

I hope a study will be done to see how many taser victims are minorities. One of my relatives has a severe heart condition. If she was tasered, she would probably not survive. Non violent people should not lose their lives simply because they did not obey orders from the police.