Stun guns and cops.
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
The bike patrol jumped right on it.
Cops are supposed to drag people around, that is their job. "I got tired" is no excuse to taser someone.
It is behavior like this that fuels the taser debate.
I think we can see that the problem isn't Tasers per se, but the people who use them. You know, kind of like guns? And, speaking of guns, it's probably a good thing that the cops had a Taser in the UCLA incident. If they'd shot the poor bastard to death, they would have been cleared of any wrongdoing.
Are stun guns available on the market?
Apparently it depends
Googling the term "stun gun" returns many links offering the things for sale. And they seem plentiful at eBay. Beyond that, there may be some local regulatory issues about possession and use, but I haven't given that aspect much thought. A quick check brings up a list of places in the U.S. where stun guns are restricted. An administrator for a self-defense products seller's discussion board advises that, "Ultimately, a call to your local police department is what one needs to do to find out if something is legal or not. Although we can ship there, you may have restrictions imposed by local authorities that we are unaware of and it is your responsibility, not any company's, to follow local laws and regulations." (TBO-Tech)
As for outside the U.S., I have no clue.
Googling the term "stun gun" returns many links offering the things for sale. And they seem plentiful at eBay. Beyond that, there may be some local regulatory issues about possession and use, but I haven't given that aspect much thought. A quick check brings up a list of places in the U.S. where stun guns are restricted. An administrator for a self-defense products seller's discussion board advises that, "Ultimately, a call to your local police department is what one needs to do to find out if something is legal or not. Although we can ship there, you may have restrictions imposed by local authorities that we are unaware of and it is your responsibility, not any company's, to follow local laws and regulations." (TBO-Tech)
As for outside the U.S., I have no clue.
Hmm so if they are safe and non-lethal why are they restricted?
Now there's a great attitude. For making the cops drag him out of the library, he deserves to be shot to death. I don't care for that attitude.
Samcdkey said:
Good question. The cynical side of me says firearms company lobbyists, but in truth I have no clue why.
MetaKron said:
The police have some weird standards. In one infamous case, cops shot a guy for attempting to show them his identification. In another, an undercover officer physically accosted a man, who defended himself and was shot to death. In both cases, the police were cleared. In one instance in Seattle, police shot a mentally ill robbery suspect to death because the guy turned around; with at least twenty feet between the suspect and the officer, it's hard to believe that a man who was not advancing on the police--who was known to not be carrying a gun--posed such a threat.
The rhetoric of police excuses is disturbing. In one case where a Seattle officer shot a fleeing driver to death, the excuse was that he attempted to run over the cop's partner. The actual narrative, though, is that when the man tried to flee, the partner grabbed onto the car and was dragged. This is a far cry from attacking a police officer with a car. Is flight a reason to kill someone? Apparently the police didn't think so, since they felt the need to embellish the story.
I'd say it's a good thing the UCLA incident involved Tasers. Despite what seems to be overreaction by the police, the situation could have been much worse.
It's not a matter of what the suspect deserved: it's a matter of what the police can get away with. And they know they can get away with it.
what is the purpose for "passive" resistance? you will need to define "passive" resistance before i can answer the question.
probably because in the wrong hands, such as terrorists and others, they can be a problem.
what's up sam? can't you believe 50 or so independent coroner reports?
and what exactly are the police getting away with?
give ANY example of the innocent being targeted by the police.
Last edited:
So can knives and liquid petroleum but those are easily available.
If they are so harmless they should be readily available. I can think of a few good uses for a taser myself.
i edited my post
but anyway your last comment here says alot.
if you want one they are sold online.
i got a drive type, the kind that doesn't shoot, for my girlfriend on valentines day.
Leopold99 said:
Any? Gladly, and easily. Patrick Dorismond. Innocent, targeted by an entrapment sting, shot to death by police.
Why, are you claiming it never happens?
Hell, what about Tulia, Texas? Arresting 12% of the city's black population on drug charges trumped up by a single white officer providing no real evidence, and who has a history of racism, drug abuse, and theft? Forty-six innocent people were awarded a settlement, and the debacle caused a 26-county, federally-financed narcotics task force disbanded.
Last edited:
really?
(CBS) A New York grand jury declined to indict the police officer who shot unarmed Patrick Dorismond, the Manhattan district attorney announced Thursday.
According to Vasquez and his partner, the incident began when Dorismond threw a punch at the second officer during a confrontation outside a bar on Eighth Avenue. Dorismond and a friend, Kevin Kaiser, then allegedly attacked the officer.
Vasquez said that as he came to his partner's aid, he heard one of the two men scuffling with the officer saying, "Get his gun!" Vasquez claimed that he shouted "Police! Police!" before pulling his weapon.
When Dorismond grabbed at the gun, it went off and struck him in the chest with a single bullet, the officer claimed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/03/25/national/main176270.shtml
edit
of course kaiser, dorismonds accomplice, said that isn't what happened.
it was later determined that dorismond had marijuana in his system.
this leads me to believe that the cops was watching dorismond and had every reason to believe he was 'into' drugs.
unless you provide other info i cannot accept your claim of dorismonds innocence.
i've never said it doesn't happen
after reviewing the first person you named you'll excuse me if i don't just take your word for it.
links?
Last edited:
Being black and having no drugs means you're guilty? That's sick, man.
Of course, Leopold99, I forgot that police officers have more rights than other people. My bad. I was silly enough to think there was something in the United States called equal protection. While other guilty people make excuses after the fact, cops are obviously telling the truth. Whatever.
Remember that the operation in question was entrapment. Dorismond had every right to be annoyed after being accosted by an undercover police officer. And, hell, wouldn't you try to disarm a man who instigated a fight?
Oh, that's right. He's black. And there is a questionable coroner's report that officials offered up in order to dramatize a trivial juvenile record and describe Dorismond as a career criminal. That makes him guilty, and that makes him fair game for entrapment, and that means he doesn't have the right to defend himself.
I'm aware of that. It is, in fact, part of the reason I asked. But your response doesn't address the issue of why you ask, and why you demand.
After considering your reasons for convicting Dorismond of being so horrible, you'll excuse me if I don't believe it matters to you. Nonetheless:
Given that you didn't take my word for it in the first place, and given your sick standard of guilt, I can only wonder why you didn't bother looking up Tulia. Since it's obvious you don't trust me, why not have a look for yourself? Oh, right. You don't get to convict a black man for having no drugs on his person in this case, and thus don't get to be self-righteous about it.
Anyway, forgive me for overestimating you. I forget sometimes how much pleasure some people get from hating the innocent. Really, such pettiness is somewhat unreal to me, and I forget it's there until someone shows it.
Of course, Leopold99, I forgot that police officers have more rights than other people. My bad. I was silly enough to think there was something in the United States called equal protection. While other guilty people make excuses after the fact, cops are obviously telling the truth. Whatever.
Remember that the operation in question was entrapment. Dorismond had every right to be annoyed after being accosted by an undercover police officer. And, hell, wouldn't you try to disarm a man who instigated a fight?
Oh, that's right. He's black. And there is a questionable coroner's report that officials offered up in order to dramatize a trivial juvenile record and describe Dorismond as a career criminal. That makes him guilty, and that makes him fair game for entrapment, and that means he doesn't have the right to defend himself.
I'm aware of that. It is, in fact, part of the reason I asked. But your response doesn't address the issue of why you ask, and why you demand.
After considering your reasons for convicting Dorismond of being so horrible, you'll excuse me if I don't believe it matters to you. Nonetheless:
- CBSNews.com: "Targeted In Tulia, Texas?"
- StopTheDrugWar.org: "Drug Warriors Decimate Texas Town's Black Community, But Fight is Just Beginning"
- AustinChronicle.com: "Color of Justice"
- DrugPolicy.org: "Tulia Finds Justice"
- StopTheDrugWar.org: "Drug Warriors Decimate Texas Town's Black Community, But Fight is Just Beginning"
- AustinChronicle.com: "Color of Justice"
- DrugPolicy.org: "Tulia Finds Justice"
Given that you didn't take my word for it in the first place, and given your sick standard of guilt, I can only wonder why you didn't bother looking up Tulia. Since it's obvious you don't trust me, why not have a look for yourself? Oh, right. You don't get to convict a black man for having no drugs on his person in this case, and thus don't get to be self-righteous about it.
Anyway, forgive me for overestimating you. I forget sometimes how much pleasure some people get from hating the innocent. Really, such pettiness is somewhat unreal to me, and I forget it's there until someone shows it.
Last edited:
Man, we have people complaining about guns, then we have people complaining about stun batons/guns. Why no bringing up pepper spray/mace or bean bag projectiles? People still die from them as well.
Friggin' amazing; nothing will ever be good enough. Yet again, we have people pointing fingers at law enforcement or victims and making them out to be the bad guys rather than people that are breaking the law or being non-compliant. Ridiculous.
- N
Friggin' amazing; nothing will ever be good enough. Yet again, we have people pointing fingers at law enforcement or victims and making them out to be the bad guys rather than people that are breaking the law or being non-compliant. Ridiculous.
- N
what a drama queen. have you met sam cdkey and Tor?
the issue here is this mans guilt or innocence.
all other things aside is the coroners report.
it proves that this man had ingested marijuana within the past 30 days.
given the other circumstances of the case led me to my conclusion.
the UCLA library incident is a typical reason i insist and demand.
the officer swears he purchased dope from these people.
it seems from the report that he may very well indeed be racist but does that absolve the people he arrested?
come on tiassa you know better than to play a silly game like that
you don't hate me do you?
what was i to google on?
another one of your silly games.
i did with the help of your links.
another race card. between you and sam we'll have a full deck.
belittling me will get you nowhere
you never did answer my question of how much experience you have with law enfrcement.
Leopold99 said:
In addition to other factors about him, as well as the complete lack of evidence ... yes. Even when he had a guilty person, he still lied. I mean, come on. They even won their day in court. Eventually. Despite a racist and ridiculous system. And at the cost of a 26-county drug task force. That's a hell of a victory to hand "guilty" people, isn't it?
No, not really. But I do think the excuses you made for the police are downright sick. And hey, every now and then I take the time to meet people on their own terms. If you choose to be cheap, I'm happy to give you cheap.
Treat a cop like everyone else. The New York cops tend to say what guilty people say. And given the general corruption of law enforcement, I side with the people more than with the institutions.
I used the search terms tulia texas for most of it. I think I used tulia innocent for the "Tulia Finds Justice" article.
You found Dorismond on your own.
I have a very split opinion about law enforcement. For instance, the county sheriff's deputy showed much respect in an issue regarding my daughter, but the sheriff's office didn't seem to care when people were setting off bombs in my neighborhood. They were small bombs, nobody hurt or even targeted. And I do respect U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, formerly King County Sheriff. Not only did he drop marijuana to the bottom of his priority list, but he was part of the dedicated effort to get the Green River Killer, and lost a fight to fire a deputy caught on videotape brutalizing people during the WTO conflagration in Seattle. But there's also the former cop who has said that every cop lies in court at some point, or tampers with evidence in order to ensure a conviction. And while my attitude toward the police was improving over time, it collapsed again when I revisited my 1996 arrest for driving under the influence: I now understand why the prosecutor went forward with the charge. I would have, too. The officer's incident report was profanely dishonest. The prosecutor I dealt with several (many) years later didn't feel like standing on that report. She knew, and she had more important things to deal with. I have much respect for her handling of the case.
Really, do you want me to reach back fifteen years? It's only because you asked that I even remember the booze incident in high school. Effing badges. ("Yeah, officer. You smell booze near me because this whole side of the football field reeks of booze. What, you missed the part when the drunk chick from the other school actually smashed a bottle?") Really, a cop's stupidity is not proper grounds to search and interrogate anyone.
Oh, yeah ... and there was the DUI stop in Salem, Oregon when I was sober. The cop didn't like the way I violated the lane line. Apparently, he would have preferred I hit the black van parked on the edge of the highway, protruding into my lane. "What van?" he asked. "I didn't have to swerve around any van." (True, officer. But given that you were the only car in my mirror, I'm guessing that was you in the other lane. Especially since I saw you change lanes to get behind me and flash your pretty lights.) At that point I challenged him on implied consent, and he eventually got the message.
Um ... see, I've tried to let some of these things go. But thank you for giving me a reason to remember them. For all the times I've broken the law you'd think law enforcement would have gotten it right at least once.
Two more. I'll tip my hat to the state trooper who let me go without mentioning my license suspension; had an idiot not changed lanes in front of me and then stopped (on the freeway), the trooper would not have encountered me. Maybe he didn't feel like the paperwork. Who knows? But I chuckle at the cops who talked to me while they were apparently looking for me (something to do with smoking pot in public) and didn't pick me up.
Apocryphal: I'm told that I once smoked pot in front of a cop in New Orleans and harassed his horse. I don't recall the bit clearly, though I do have a blurry memory of at least speaking to the horse. I'm also told that I didn't actually touch the horse. Apparently, this makes a difference. Nonetheless, I survived that night without arrest. It makes for a great legend. It is likely true; I know I pissed on a Confederate Civil War memorial that night. And I know I did at least some damage in a bar near the House of Blues (called The Decatur, I think). But between the mushrooms, the booze, and the pot that I don't have a clear memory of smoking, I won't stand on the story about the horse. Treating the story as true, however, as is my habit, I must acknowledge the police officer's patience and tolerance.
(I passed on your earlier post because it was cheap.)