11 year old girl tasered by police.

[billyscott]

My question here, like many other posters, is why was an autistic 11 year old child out wandering the road at 4 AM?

Where were the parents?

I hope the Trooper has a dash cam video that will maybe clear up all the other questions.

Till then I reserve judgement. 

[TMF]

If they were close enough to Taze her they were close enough to grab her.

You weren't there, so you don't know. They were inches from the road where cars are going 80 mph. Not only that, they believed that she was on drugs since she was stark naked, unresponsive and evading them. You may feel they did wrong, but you don't know the full situation to judge.

I have two autistic nephews. If a cop chose to chase them next to a road like that they would not know better than to run out into traffic. There is a good chance that if this cop tried to grab her the child would be a stain on the highway. Why is that so hard for folks to wrap their mind around?

[TMF]

The taser was created to be used only when a gun would normally be used.

No it wasn't.

[TMF]

Every experience I have had with a police officer has been a speeding ticket or a negative one.

Sounds to me like there is a common denominator in your equation. I've encountered bad cops before, but that was the exception, not the rule. You seem to be letting on that you have had many encounters with law enforcement and they were all poor. Based on your personality I can assume there is a reason for it. If you're a dick to a cop they have every right to be a dick back to you.

I wasn't breaking the law when I was surrounded by 10+ cops with guns drawn who decided to slam me on the hood of a burning hot cop car and treat me like a murderer. I did absolutely nothing wrong and was treated like a pos.
I tried my best to help them in every way possible but they were too ignorant and power happy to listen. After an hour and a half of being cuffed on the side of the road I was told to get out of here. I got no apology, just "Get out of here". Apparently they finally listened to what I was telling them and found the right person.

I assume the reason they took a heavy hand is because you were being extremely cooperative and not being a belligerent ahole. I'd like to know what PD this was so I can send them a case of beer.

[DaveS]

This was partially her parents fault. If she has the mind of a 3 year old, where were they?  

My question as well...

 

Dave

[Murgatroy]

.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Murgatroy

[Murgatroy]

So how does that make it better? She was 11, two grown cops needed to tase an 11 year old autistic girl for her own good? BS. As I recall cops used to carry emergency equipment in their cars, and a blanket.

 

 

So TM was just an innocent child, but this 11 year old autistic was a "woman".

 

And here is the reason they did it, had nothing to do with her safety "“I thought she was drugged. I thought she was on bath salts, too much meth, something.”

 

I dont give a sh__ what anyone says, I am not anti cop but I am definitely anti dumbazz cop.

 

And that quote isnt from Infowars, that quote is from their local news channel who interviewed the cop.

 

What if that 11 year old girl had a weak heart, what would have been their excuse if they killed her?

Reading comprehension is important.

 

There was one cop, and one cabbie.

 

The cabbie was quoted, not the cop.

 

I have purposely stayed out of this discussion. A very close friend of mine who was a cop was struck and killed by a car less than a month ago on an interstate when responding to a call.

 

I personally think there are a lot of folks in this thread that are talking out of their asses from the comfort of their chairs at home.

 

Pretty easy to do.

 

There was nothing wrong with what I read in the article, just a lot of folks here that want to get riled up over nothing.

 

 

 

Where were the parents?

 

Why weren't they there if their child had the mind of a three year old? When my daughter was three I knew where she was at all times. Even now that she isn't, I still do. I am a parent, that is my job.

 

The cop was to serve and protect, the cop showed up and protected the little girl from getting hit by a car.

 

Case closed.

 

Simple as that.

[TMF]

Just like I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the officers, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the parents. I have two nephews who are on the extreme end of the autism spectrum. While their parents have yet to experience something as dramatic as this, I can imagine as the children get older new challenges will present themselves. Although this girl may have been low functioning, she is still in the body of an 11 year old. She is stronger, faster and likely has better motor skills than a three year old. I can't imagine how difficult that would be to prevent every possible danger to that child. These parents have to sleep at some point. Perhaps they have an alarm system to detect the child opening doors. For all we know the power went out, or a battery died. I don't know. What I do know is that bad things happen to even the most responsible people who do their best to plan for every possible scenario.

I know there are members here who have children that are somewhere on the spectrum. This right here must be the worst nightmare for parents who have one or more children who are considered impaired to the point of requiring constant care and supervision. I think folks, like myself, who don't live that life should have a hard time judging those parents.

[Guest TankerHC]

 

Reading comprehension is important.

 

There was one cop, and one cabbie.

 

The cabbie was quoted, not the cop.

 

I have purposely stayed out of this discussion. A very close friend of mine who was a cop was struck and killed by a car less than a month ago on an interstate when responding to a call.

 

I personally think there are a lot of folks in this thread that are talking out of their asses from the comfort of their chairs at home.

 

Pretty easy to do.

 

There was nothing wrong with what I read in the article, just a lot of folks here that want to get riled up over nothing.

 

 

 

Where were the parents?

 

Why weren't they there if their child had the mind of a three year old? When my daughter was three I knew where she was at all times. Even now that she isn't, I still do. I am a parent, that is my job.

 

The cop was to serve and protect, the cop showed up and protected the little girl from getting hit by a car.

 

Case closed.

 

Simple as that.

 

 

Yes, it is

 

"When a trooper arrived, the girl remained uncooperative and continued wandering along an unlit stretch of highway, Hastings said. The trooper was "worried about hallucinogenic impairment," when the girl ran out into traffic lanes, he said."

Edited August 12, 2013 by TankerHC

[RobertNashville]

It seems to me folks are spending an inordinate amount of time blaming (cops, parents, etc., etc.) when the time would be better spent beign glad that no one was hurt when clearly, shomeone chould have been.   :shrug:

Edited August 12, 2013 by RobertNashville

[tnguy]

Not enough information to make a call on this one. The closeness required for tasering makes me think it was probably uncalled for but if it was in close enough proximity to traffic, a struggle may not have been the best course of action.

 

I do think that tasers have become over-used though. There's a reason they've started calling them less-lethal instead of non-lethal.

[Murgatroy]

So TM was just an innocent child, but this 11 year old autistic was a "woman".

 

And here is the reason they did it, had nothing to do with her safety "“I thought she was drugged. I thought she was on bath salts, too much meth, something.”

 

I dont give a sh__ what anyone says, I am not anti cop but I am definitely anti dumbazz cop.

 

And that quote isnt from Infowars, that quote is from their local news channel who interviewed the cop.

 

What if that 11 year old girl had a weak heart, what would have been their excuse if they killed her?

 

 

Yes, it is

 

"When a trooper arrived, the girl remained uncooperative and continued wandering along an unlit stretch of highway, Hastings said. The trooper was "worried about hallucinogenic impairment," when the girl ran out into traffic lanes, he said."

The first quote you used was from "...cab driver Adam Bednar...  ..."I thought she was drugged. I thought she was on bath salts, too much meth, something,” said Bednar..." 

 

When the cop showed up, that was the information he had to go on, as that was the only witness.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

One question I have yet to hear asked is: Who mistakes an 11 year old for an adult on hallucinogens? I have mistaken a couple 15-16 year olds for adults (18), but we wont get into that :shhh: lol, but certainly not any 11 year olds though. Tasering of a child is wrong, period. 20 feet, think any decent cop could make that lunge in less than a second, maybe two.

I do have this to say though, all those saying we weren't there and cops should be allowed to do what they have to...no we weren't there but can make reasonable assumptions and cops do what they want to regardless because they have the protection of that shiny metal on their chest. You are sheep and accept whatever they say as infallible truth. I can't wait to see all you police can do no wrong types get wronged by a pissed off power tripping cop.

I would never make the assumption that all cops are bad guys or abuse their power but I will say it is split at least 50/50 and of the good 50 another 40 won't interfere with a bad cop doing something wrong. I can say this with 110% conviction because of personal interactions (good and bad), most of my hometown force being family and all the stories and reports on the subject.

I am also with everyone saying tasers have become the lazy cops go to. And yes it was originally developed for use only when a firearm would have been used, hence the "Less than lethal" designation. It was meant to be an alternative to lethal force not a compliance tool. Now that many departments/academies train it as a "Pain compliance" tool does not mean that is what it was designed for.

[RobertNashville]

Well, this girl should just be glad she wasn't driving a car, caused an accident and then, becasue of her illness she was unrespnsive to officer commands and assumed then to be drunk at which point she woudl have been  violently dragged her from the vehicle, handcuffed her behind her back and put facedown on pavement on a 100degree day whie the officer walked away leaving her that way.  :panic:  

[TMF]

You are sheep and accept whatever they say as infallible truth.

Who the f*** said that? I never accepted ANYTHING as infallible truth. I'm just giving the officer the benefit of the doubt due to a lack of information and obvious dire circumstances, such as a life and death situation for which the officer had very little information.





























Oh yeah...... baaaaahhhhh. Edited August 12, 2013 by TMF

[RobertNashville]

...Tasering of a child is wrong, period.

Tasering a child is wrong, period...really?

What if I were to say that "shooting another person with a firearm is wrong, period"? I suggest that both statements are equally ridiculous and devoid of logic.

 

I do have this to say though, all those saying we weren't there and cops should be allowed to do what they have to...no we weren't there but can make reasonable assumptions and cops do what they want to regardless because they have the protection of that shiny metal on their chest. You are sheep and accept whatever they say as infallible truth. I can't wait to see all you police can do no wrong types get wronged by a pissed off power tripping cop.

There aren't many "police can do no wrong types" on this forum nore does giving the police the benefit of the doube, especially based on such sparce info, constitute a "police can do no wrong attitude".

 

I would never make the assumption that all cops are bad guys or abuse their power but I will say it is split at least 50/50 and of the good 50 another 40 won't interfere with a bad cop doing something wrong. I can say this with 110% conviction because of personal interactions (good and bad), most of my hometown force being family and all the stories and reports on the subject.

Well, anyone can say anything they want or make any wildassed assertion they want (such as 50% of all cops are bad or abuse their power), however, having real facts to back up wildassed assertions is quite another matter. Your "personal interactions" aside, I doubt you have any facts to back up such a wild claim.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Who the f*** said that? I never accepted ANYTHING as infallible truth. I'm just giving the officer the benefit of the doubt due to a lack of information and obvious dire circumstances, such as a life and death situation for which the officer had very little information.

Never said anyone said it. Just the vibe given off when the "benefit of the doubt" is always given. Just as you say we weren't there and can't say what happened then neither can you assume what they did was right. Benefit of the doubt is one of the biggest problems with our legal system, anytime it is police word vs defendants, unless there is evidence or other witnesses, the benefit is always given to officers. Let's say for example: Guy wants to be a prick to an officer, officer takes it to heart and rather than acting professionally they decide to drag guy out of the car and beat the crap out of them and say they smelled pot or some other PC and you started resisting etc etc etc can happen 1000 different ways, if there is no video or witnesses then that person is going to jail for a long time just for being rude. Bottom line is giving anyone in a questionable situation the benefit of the doubt is a bad move and you should always assume the worst case scenario...doesn't mean they are guilty, just means they have someone to check them.
I don't assume the worst of people I know, unless that is just who they are, but I do assume the worst of people I don't know. If people didn't assume the worst in people in general then there would be no gun owners. Why should it be any different for cops? Because they passed a mental and physical exam? How many bad cops have passed those?

[TMF]

Who the f*** said that? I never accepted ANYTHING as infallible truth. I'm just giving the officer the benefit of the doubt due to a lack of information and obvious dire circumstances, such as a life and death situation for which the officer had very little information.

Never said anyone said it.

No, you didn't. You made the assertion that I held that opinion. I simply was asking where I said it so that I could reference whether or not you were stating a confirmed fact or just talking out your ass.

You are sheep and accept whatever they say as infallible truth.

Benefit of the doubt is one of the biggest problems with our legal system, anytime it is police word vs defendants, unless there is evidence or other witnesses, the benefit is always given to officers.

So then law enforcement should be considered guilty of abuses until proven innocent? Edited August 12, 2013 by TMF

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Tasering a child is wrong, period...really?

What if I were to say that "shooting another person with a firearm is wrong, period"? I suggest that both statements are equally ridiculous and devoid of logic.

 
There aren't many "police can do no wrong types" on this forum nore does giving the police the benefit of the doube, especially based on such sparce info, constitute a "police can do no wrong attitude".

 
Well, anyone can say anything they want or make any wildassed assertion they want (such as 50% of all cops are bad or abuse their power), however, having real facts to back up wildassed assertions is quite another matter. Your "personal interactions" aside, I doubt you have any facts to back up such a wild claim.

Yes, tasering children is wrong. If you cant physically restrain a child then you aren't physically fit enough to be an officer, or at least shouldn't be.
As for "police can do no wrong types", there do seem to be a couple. Giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, especially just based on occupation, is wrong and if you give it to that person just based on their occupation it does give the impression of "police can do no wrong as long as they say it was necessary".
My personal experience are MY facts, whether you accept them or not is your choice. I have lived all over this country except the west coast and north east. Everywhere from MT to FL. Interactions have ranged from extremely good to pretty bad. Thankfully I haven't had any interactions that made me want to track them down off duty lol. As for other "facts", just take a look at complaints and lawsuits, and take a guess at those too afraid to complain or those intimidated into not filing, vs the number of officers in the country.

[TMF]

I would never make the assumption that all cops are bad guys or abuse their power but I will say it is split at least 50/50 and of the good 50 another 40 won't interfere with a bad cop doing something wrong. I can say this with 110% conviction because of personal interactions (good and bad), most of my hometown force being family and all the stories and reports on the subject.

Okay, I'll play this game.

I never make assumptions either about gun owners, but 50% of them are trigger happy vigilantes. This is based on my experiences, of course, so I need no evidence to back this up. After all, most of my family owns firearms, so I know how those people are.

Oh yeah, and half of all white people are racists too.

[tnguy]

There's a big difference between "giving the benefit of the doubt" and saying "I simply don't have enough information to make a determination". People do far too little of the latter (and far too much of the former and its converse).

[Guest Keal G Seo]

No, you didn't. You made the assertion that I held that opinion. I simply was asking where I said it so that I could reference whether or not you were stating a confirmed fact or just talking out your ass.

So then law enforcement should be considered guilty of abuses until proven innocent?

I still make the assertion that anyone that comes to defense of officers with no proof either way hold that mentality.
No, even though that is how the general public is treated by cops. I do however think that cops shouldn't be given any special treatment just because of their occupation. Therefor there should be no benefit of the doubt given. If someone makes the accusation that they are guilty of an abuse it should be investigated by someone other than their own boys in blue.

 

Okay, I'll play this game.

I never make assumptions either about gun owners, but 50% of them are trigger happy vigilantes. This is based on my experiences, of course, so I need no evidence to back this up. After all, most of my family owns firearms, so I know how those people are.

Oh yeah, and half of all white people are racists too.

The proper way to put if you are attempting to play on my words would have been: "I would never make the assumption that ALL* gun owners are...but 50% of them are". So 50% of the people you know are trigger happy vigilantes? You really should do something about that then. Obviously sarcasm though, but I guess it is going over my head since you have a very limited pool with people you know. Where my police interactions have been with an entire force of my hometown plus all the interactions I have had across the country. On average half are good guys and half have shriveled pricks and like to take it out on the public.

As for racists, actually everyone is racist...it is just to what extent. To give you an idea of what I mean check out "Everyone's a little bit racist" by Avenue Q.

As for who is talking out of their a** here, how are your assumptions any different than those with differing opinions? You weren't there either so why does the cop get the benefit of the doubt?

[TMF]

I still make the assertion that anyone that comes to defense of officers with no proof either way hold that mentality.

I didn't come to her defense. I'm simply giving her the benefit of the doubt because the situation sounds complex and I wasn't there. For all I know the officer was foaming at the mouth to taze the first naked 11 year old she could find that night.

What I find so comical in your statement above "coming to the defense of an officer with no proof" is you're making a person who is saying "I wasn't there so I'm not passing judgement" sound more unreasonable than someone like yourself who says "I wasn't there but I know the officer is guilty."

I'd hate to be the one to break it to you, but for someone to be guilty of something there has to be proof, not the other way around. You're essentially saying "prove this officer didn't do something wrong", as if disproving a negative is how debates are done. Go back to the drawing board on that for your own benefit.

[TMF]

[You weren't there either so why does the cop get the benefit of the doubt?

Ummm, well, when there aren't any facts to assert that wrongdoing took place then you have to give the benefit of the doubt. That's just how that works.... ya know, since there isn't evidence there exists doubt, and the benefit of such doubt goes to the accused party. That is what "benefit of the doubt" means. I thought it was self evident. Is there anything else I can help you with?

[RobertNashville]

Yes, tasering children is wrong. If you cant physically restrain a child then you aren't physically fit enough to be an officer, or at least shouldn't be.

My personal experience are MY facts, whether you accept them or not is your choice. I have lived all over this country except the west coast and north east. Everywhere from MT to FL. Interactions have ranged from extremely good to pretty bad. Thankfully I haven't had any interactions that made me want to track them down off duty lol. As for other "facts", just take a look at complaints and lawsuits, and take a guess at those too afraid to complain or those intimidated into not filing, vs the number of officers in the country.

“Your facts” are likely as devoid of substance ad your posts in this thread have been. There are approximately 18,000 state and local law engorcement agencies in the United States and some 800,000 sworn personnel...I doubt, even with your extensive interractions with said personnel, if the sample size devided by the total population would even register as a 1 1/1000th of a percent??  :rofl:  :rofl:

 

It also rather begs the question of just why you've had so much "extensive experience????

 

Perhaps once you've lived long enough to really have some substantial life experiences you'll eventually come to learn how worthless such personal “facts” are in judging the actions of other people, especially whole groups of people.

Such hope on my part that you'll lear that lesson is fleeting, however, given your disgusting quip that you “haven't had any interactions that made me want to track them down off duty”...how fortunate for those officers that they didn't piss you off too much. :rolleyes:

Edited August 12, 2013 by RobertNashville