11 year old girl tasered by police.

[TMF]

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".

No, actually nearly mean the same thing. In fact, they go hand in hand. For example, when a jury "doesn't have enough information to make a determination" what do they normally do? Hmmm? Do they:

A. Convict the accused?

B. Give them the benefit of the doubt?

C. Do the Safety Dance?

[TMF]

[ 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.

Oh, so your extensive interaction with law enforcement has been with your hometown PD, which has allowed you to condemn the whole of law enforcement in the US (or at least half... actually 90%, since you claimed 40% of that "good" 50% would allow the dirty ones to do bad stuff). So then, based on your superior mathematic and statistical analysis skills, we can make the "reasonable" assumption that only 10% of police are the good guys. I'll have to share this with my father who was an LEO for three and a half decades. He'll think it's cute.

[Chucktshoes]

No, actually nearly mean the same thing. In fact, they go hand in hand. For example, when a jury "doesn't have enough information to make a determination" what do they normally do? Hmmm? Do they:

A. Convict the accused?

B. Give them the benefit of the doubt?

C. Do the Safety Dance?

Only as long as we can leave your friends behind. Because your friends don't dance, and if they don't dance, then they're no friends of mine.

[TMF]

Only as long as we can leave your friends behind. Because your friends don't dance, and if they don't dance, then they're no friends of mine.

The soundtrack in your head for the rest of the evening brought to you by yours truly.

[TMF]

Is it possible that sometimes bad or unfortunate things happen and there just isn't anyone to blame? Could it ever be that the undesired outcome was the result of the very best intentions and a decision made in a timely manner with limited information? Or do we need the pitchforks? It does make everyone feel better when we get to burn a witch.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

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.

First, in giving her the "benefit of the doubt" you are in fact saying "With the available evidence I believe she was just in her actions". Saying "I wasn't there so I'm not passing judgement" is a COMPLETELY different statement.
I didn't say I know the officer is guilty of anything beyond what they admit to, tasering a child. As I stated previously, 20 feet can be covered by the average person in about 1.5 seconds...take any defense class an you will know that (21 feet actually). And how do you mistake an 11 year old for a drug crazed adult? I am not making any other assumptions other than what she said.

 

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?

Yes it is, but it isn't given simply at the time of the lack of evidence. It is given AFTER no evidence is provided on the accuser's side. The evidence I present you is that a taser has a range of about 20 feet, even less on a smaller target like a child. This same evidence can be used to say who mistakes an 11 year old child within 20 feet as a drug crazed adult? Finally on a last note, why is there an officer on duty that is incapable of subduing a person, regardless of actual age, the size of an 11 year old?

 

No, actually nearly mean the same thing. In fact, they go hand in hand. For example, when a jury "doesn't have enough information to make a determination" what do they normally do? Hmmm? Do they:

A. Convict the accused?

B. Give them the benefit of the doubt?

C. Do the Safety Dance?

No they have quite different meanings. My answer is D. Acquittal on lack of evidence. Doesn't mean the person isn't guilty, just means they cant be punished in our legal system. Hell, take a look at Casey Anthony. I believe wholeheartedly that she is guilty, the lack of evidence does not mean to me that I give her the benefit of any doubt. Just that the doubt benefited her in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt in the case with this cop, she tasered the kid and in my eyes that was unnecessary.

 

Oh, so your extensive interaction with law enforcement has been with your hometown PD, which has allowed you to condemn the whole of law enforcement in the US (or at least half... actually 90%, since you claimed 40% of that "good" 50% would allow the dirty ones to do bad stuff). So then, based on your superior mathematic and statistical analysis skills, we can make the "reasonable" assumption that only 10% of police are the good guys. I'll have to share this with my father who was an LEO for three and a half decades. He'll think it's cute.

Did you just read the first half of that sentence? It isn't just my hometown, that is just where I had interactions with the entire force. Over my lifetime I have many more interactions than those. I would even say the majority of interactions have come from outside of my home town because most of them knew me. That doesn't mean I didn't see them wrong other people though. As for your father, that explains a lot... :rofl:

 

“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:

You are right about my personal sample size but did you account for all complaints and lawsuits filed plus taking a shot in the number of people who were too afraid or were intimidated into not filing? My "extensive experience" is because I am not afraid to approach officers and strike up conversations. I also record police interactions with the public just for kicks and giggles it gives me when one of the bad cops takes issue with it.
BTW, I'm pushing 30 so I think I have lived long enough and had a few experiences. Personal facts are the only ones that matter to anyone. Does it matter to you that people say the majority of America is for stricter gun control? Probably not given your personal facts. And passing judgement on whole groups of people stereotypes are stereotypical for a reason.

On that quip, I've known several people to have such bad interactions with police that they find out who they are and where they hang out outside of work to catch them at the bar or something and just beat the crap out of them. Most aren't so tough and hard a**ed when they don't have badges (and the laws that privilege them), guns, batons, tasers, clubs, mace and radios for back up.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Keal G Seo

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Is it possible that sometimes bad or unfortunate things happen and there just isn't anyone to blame? Could it ever be that the undesired outcome was the result of the very best intentions and a decision made in a timely manner with limited information? Or do we need the pitchforks? It does make everyone feel better when we get to burn a witch.

No it isn't, except in the case of acts of God. IE Natural disasters etc. Anytime decisions are made by man(kind) there is someone to blame, good or bad. We don't need the pitchforks but we do need people to call those decisions into question or you end up with everyone saying "Oh well it isn't the worst that could have happened".
Let's say I see a guy kicking the crap out someone and I beat them NEARLY to death...like coma and life threatening injuries, the nine. I had the best intentions, getting them to stop beating on someone else. Since I didn't actually kill them does that make it ok since I had the best intentions, had to make a timely decision with limited information and it could have ended worse than if I hadn't interfered?

[c.a.willard]

First, in giving her the "benefit of the doubt" you are in fact saying "With the available evidence I believe she was just in her actions". Saying "I wasn't there so I'm not passing judgement" is a COMPLETELY different statement.
I didn't say I know the officer is guilty of anything beyond what they admit to, tasering a child. As I stated previously, 20 feet can be covered by the average person in about 1.5 seconds...take any defense class an you will know that (21 feet actually). And how do you mistake an 11 year old for a drug crazed adult? I am not making any other assumptions other than what she said.

 

Yes it is, but it isn't given simply at the time of the lack of evidence. It is given AFTER no evidence is provided on the accuser's side. The evidence I present you is that a taser has a range of about 20 feet, even less on a smaller target like a child. This same evidence can be used to say who mistakes an 11 year old child within 20 feet as a drug crazed adult? Finally on a last note, why is there an officer on duty that is incapable of subduing a person, regardless of actual age, the size of an 11 year old?

 

No they have quite different meanings. My answer is D. Acquittal on lack of evidence. Doesn't mean the person isn't guilty, just means they cant be punished in our legal system. Hell, take a look at Casey Anthony. I believe wholeheartedly that she is guilty, the lack of evidence does not mean to me that I give her the benefit of any doubt. Just that the doubt benefited her in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt in the case with this cop, she tasered the kid and in my eyes that was unnecessary.

 

Did you just read the first half of that sentence? It isn't just my hometown, that is just where I had interactions with the entire force. Over my lifetime I have many more interactions than those. I would even say the majority of interactions have come from outside of my home town because most of them knew me. That doesn't mean I didn't see them wrong other people though. As for your father, that explains a lot... :rofl:

 

You are right about my personal sample size but did you account for all complaints and lawsuits filed plus taking a shot in the number of people who were too afraid or were intimidated into not filing? My "extensive experience" is because I am not afraid to approach officers and strike up conversations. I also record police interactions with the public just for kicks and giggles it gives me when one of the bad cops takes issue with it.
BTW, I'm pushing 30 so I think I have lived long enough and had a few experiences. Personal facts are the only ones that matter to anyone. Does it matter to you that people say the majority of America is for stricter gun control? Probably not given your personal facts. And passing judgement on whole groups of people stereotypes are stereotypical for a reason.

On that quip, I've known several people to have such bad interactions with police that they find out who they are and where they hang out outside of work to catch them at the bar or something and just beat the crap out of them. Most aren't so tough and hard a**ed when they don't have badges (and the laws that privilege them), guns, batons, tasers, clubs, mace and radios for back up.

Lets take that last argument and break it down into pieces so that maybe youll understand more

 

1) your assuming the 11 year old girl would stay static while the officer was covering that 20 feet of distance.  Lets be realistic that just aint happening.  Also the cars traveling by are covering about 176 feet in that 1.5 seconds.  Do you want to guess how far the average low beams illuminate on most cars.  Ill give you a hint the numbers are real close.  Take any good defensive class and they'll tell you that the tueller drills place is more academic than practical gunfighting, why because people can move.

 

2) Number 1 just disproved your "evidence"

 

3) your allowing your personal bias towards police officers to cloud your critical thinking skills.  This next part is an assumption on my part but people tend to dismiss the good and zero in on the negative causing a slanted view of the people involved.

 

4) Even you have to see the fallacy in trying to use recorded complaints to state that the majority of officers are bad.  For starters some of those complaints are BS.  Also people tend not to call and say i would just like to tell you that i had a really good encounter with one of your officers they were highly professional.  Again because people ignore the good and zero in on the bad

 

5) Your friends conspired to commit a violent forcible felony and you think this cop is the bad guy.  Explains alot.

[enfield]

Cops are extremely taser happy.

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

 

It has turned into a tool for them to not have to work up a sweat.

 

Tasering someone for their own good has been an overly used excuse for quite some time.

The more I read things like this, the less I like cops.

The more I deal with cops in person the less I like them.

 

 

I nor anyone in my family has ever needed a police officer to help.

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

 

They are trained to not be polite.

Trained to "take charge".

 

 

I don't the serve part of their motto is trained anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

If they really needed to protect the girl couldn't they have just parked their car in the middle of the road and stopped traffic?

Do you have ANY idea how dangerous that is to everyone on the highway!

[NRA]

Don't ya just love the Monday night arm chair quarter backs?

[Guest travr6]

Do you have ANY idea how dangerous that is to everyone on the highway!

Which part?

[DaveTN]

Between yanking people out of cars that are having diabetic seizures and tasing naked 11 year olds that look like an adult and suffer from autism; I think the best fix for this problem is probably requiring Police Officers to be Doctors, or at least require them to have attended medical school.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Between yanking people out of cars that are having diabetic seizures and tasing naked 11 year olds that look like an adult and suffer from autism; I think the best fix for this problem is probably requiring Police Officers to be Doctors, or at least require them to have attended medical school.

Well, we're gonna need more doctors now that Obamacare is causing doctors to retire early, and that there is gonna be a shortage of doctors.

[DaveTN]

Well, we're gonna need more doctors now that Obamacare is causing doctors to retire early, and that there is gonna be a shortage of doctors.

Maybe they can do both. I mean let’s face it; your Doctor doesn’t do anything anyway but spend your money on houses, cars and golf clubs. The Nurses and the PA’a do all the work. So a guy could have a couple of hours in the Office in the morning and patrol the rest of the day.

[TMF]

No it isn't, except in the case of acts of God. IE Natural disasters etc. Anytime decisions are made by man(kind) there is someone to blame, good or bad. We don't need the pitchforks but we do need people to call those decisions into question or you end up with everyone saying "Oh well it isn't the worst that could have happened".

Let's say I see a guy kicking the crap out someone and I beat them NEARLY to death...like coma and life threatening injuries, the nine. I had the best intentions, getting them to stop beating on someone else. Since I didn't actually kill them does that make it ok since I had the best intentions, had to make a timely decision with limited information and it could have ended worse than if I hadn't interfered?

Nowhere in this incoherent babbling do you make any sense or address what I said.

[Guest travr6]

Between yanking people out of cars that are having diabetic seizures and tasing naked 11 year olds that look like an adult and suffer from autism; I think the best fix for this problem is probably requiring Police Officers to be Doctors, or at least require them to have attended medical school.

I would ike to see guns and tasers taken away from the police.

See how quickly their attitudes change.

[DaveTN]

I would ike to see guns and tasers taken away from the police.

See how quickly their attitudes change.

It’s usually not attitude; but that another conversation that’s probably pointless.  I didn’t have a Taser, but I would bet the number of lives that have been saved by Tasers is astronomical; and I’m not talking about cops lives saved.

[Pain103]

I would ike to see guns and tasers taken away from the police.
See how quickly their attitudes change.

You have just been a ray of sunshine since joining. I don't know your past involvement with law enforcement and really don't care. A weapon doesn't make a man so disarming cops isnt the answer. You do have the option of trying to get hired and change things to improve what you think is a poor image of your law enforcement. Edited August 13, 2013 by Pain103

[Dolomite_supafly]

You have just been a ray of sunshine since joining. I don't know your past involvement with law enforcement and really don't care. A weapon doesn't make a man so disarming cops isnt the answer. You do have the option of trying to get hired and change things to improve what you think is a poor image of your law enforcement.

 

Probably not. With all his "bad experiences" with LE I suspect he would have a hard time passing their background.

 

I have said it before and will say it again. Very few truly innocent people have had a negative experience, as in a single one, with LE and here we have someone has had several. I bet 99% of the people on this board have never had LE question them, much less handcuff them. I suspect he isn't as innocent as he claims and it is just that he hasn't be caught with the enough evidence to turn him from a "innocent bystander" to a criminal. Personally it sounds like he got caught up in something one of his friends was involved in. He even says most of his negative experiences have nothing to do with speeding so that begs the question, how did LE find their way to him? LE just don't randomly pick out the same person several times.

[DaveTN]

Probably not. With all his "bad experiences" with LE I suspect he would have a hard time passing their background.

 

I have said it before and will say it again. Very few truly innocent people have had a negative experience, as in a single one, with LE and here we have someone has had several. I bet 99% of the people on this board have never had LE question them, much less handcuff them. I suspect he isn't as innocent as he claims and it is just that he hasn't be caught with the enough evidence to turn him from a "innocent bystander" to a criminal. Personally it sounds like he got caught up in something one of his friends was involved in. He even says most of his negative experiences have nothing to do with speeding so that begs the question, how did LE find their way to him? LE just don't randomly pick out the same person several times.

To get to the root of the problem with many of the cop haters the gloves need to come off in the discussion; that usually ends badly.

 

The bottom line is that cops are people and they make mistakes. But just like private citizens that have been involved in situations; you sometimes have a second to react and then everyone is going to sit around for days and offer a wealth of information on what you should have done. Not saying that is a bad thing; I do it all the time, it’s how we learn. I remember one of our instructors talking about how no one (in law enforcement) likes to talk about the mistakes a dead cop made; especially if they knew him. But we have to discuss those situations and see what he did wrong so we don't die.

 

Mine and your opinions (and others here) come from actually having been cops, walked in their shoes, and been in the situations. The opinions formed by experience may be different than those that think they would be Officer Friendly and dissect all information before acting. Like me I’m sure you have been in many situations that would have ended much differently if you could have turned the clock back 10 seconds.

Edited August 13, 2013 by DaveTN

[RobertNashville]

As is true in much of life, cop haters are goin'a hate.

As is true with all emotions, hate doesn'te require logic or reason or facts; it's just an emotion.  For some people, one bad incident with a cop and suddenly "all cops are bad"...one bad mistake by a cop such as what happened in the Nashville area a few years ago (Smyrna manbe?) where a no-knock warrant was executed on the wrong house and an innocent elderly man was killed when he defended his home and suddenly, all no-knock warrrants are bad and sholuld never be allowed to happen (when the truth is that they may need reigning in/changes made but do have their place).

 

Cops make mistakes. Some cops are corrups assholes who need to be wearing the handcuffs they cary but I'd say the overwhelming majority are decent men and women trying to do a very difficult job.  I don't respect a cop just because he has a badge; respect must alwasy be earned but disrespect should also be earned; nto assumed.

[tercel89]

If you are a LEO here then you know that you cant make a decision based on this . You would have to be THERE ON THE SCENE  . The news changes things and gets things mixed up . The police may have been right or wrong , but dont believe the news .

[E4 No More]

If you are a LEO here then you know that you cant make a decision based on this . You would have to be THERE ON THE SCENE  . The news changes things and gets things mixed up . The police may have been right or wrong , but dont believe the news .

I knew another officer who was involved in a shooting - guy came out and pointed an AK at the officers and got his medulla shot out for his troubles - and the reporter stated to the officer, (who isn't allowed to make statements to the press by SOP), to either tell her what happened or she'd just make it up. He didn't talk and she made it up. There is no such thing as integrity in reporting anymore.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

In the 1970's when I worked at the psychiatric hospital, a lot of acute patients were delivered to the facility by police and as far as I could tell the cops at that time were generally excellent handling crazy people.

Been thinking back on those times and can't recall any cases where the clients came in all scuffed up from the results of being apprehended and hauled in. Dunno if they had real good training in this, but the popo seemed talented detecting the difference between crazies and criminals, and handling the crazies without scuffing them up.

Or alternately, maybe the scuffed-up crazies were delivered to a medical hospital instead, which is the reason I didn't see intake clients in scuffed up condition. Dunno.

We could generally handle misbehaving crazies, but when we couldn't do it without hurting them, we'd very rarely call the cops. Doubtful that the cops enjoyed coming out on such calls, but all the cases I saw, they were great handling the patients with minimal damage.

It is HARD to handle some crazies without hurting them, and once in awhile it won't work out so well.

Some of the modern reports of crazies scuffed up or dead because of arrest methods. Makes me wonder if the overall handling of nutcases is about the same nowadays, or if the average handling is rougher nowadays for whatever reason? Dunno one way or t'other, just curious. In the past, lacking "non lethal" tools, spray, tasers, beanbags, maybe the popo were forced to do it "the hard way" which was higher risk to the officer but in the end result lower risk to the crazy?

Or maybe the "non lethal" tools any time a citizen is irrational and rambunctious, is overall safer for all concerned nowadays? Dunno.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Is it possible that sometimes bad or unfortunate things happen and there just isn't anyone to blame? Could it ever be that the undesired outcome was the result of the very best intentions and a decision made in a timely manner with limited information? Or do we need the pitchforks? It does make everyone feel better when we get to burn a witch.

 

No it isn't, except in the case of acts of God. IE Natural disasters etc. Anytime decisions are made by man(kind) there is someone to blame, good or bad. We don't need the pitchforks but we do need people to call those decisions into question or you end up with everyone saying "Oh well it isn't the worst that could have happened".
Let's say I see a guy kicking the crap out someone and I beat them NEARLY to death...like coma and life threatening injuries, the nine. I had the best intentions, getting them to stop beating on someone else. Since I didn't actually kill them does that make it ok since I had the best intentions, had to make a timely decision with limited information and it could have ended worse than if I hadn't interfered?

 

Nowhere in this incoherent babbling do you make any sense or address what I said.

So you are trying to make this personal and get a reaction out of me, saying I am "talking out of your ass" and calling my statements "incoherent babbling". Your lack of an actual argument amuses me. I will clarify my statement for you since you seem to lack the skills required to comprehend the English language.

"Is it possible that sometimes bad or unfortunate things happen and there just isn't anyone to blame?"
"No it isn't, except in the case of acts of God. IE Natural disasters etc. Anytime decisions are made by man(kind) there is someone to blame, good or bad."

This means that, no, it isn't possible. With exceptions given to natural occurrences. This is because if someone makes a decision and there is an outcome, that person can be to blame. This goes for both good and bad outcomes.

"Or do we need the pitchforks?"
"We don't need the pitchforks but we do need people to call those decisions into question or you end up with everyone saying "Oh well it isn't the worst that could have happened"."

This means that I do not condone mob justice but that I do believe we need the people who call everyone's actions into question. Without those people you are left with a population that accepts any action as long as it wasn't the worth that could have happened.

"Could it ever be that the undesired outcome was the result of the very best intentions and a decision made in a timely manner with limited information?"
"Let's say I see a guy kicking the crap out someone and I beat them NEARLY to death...like coma and life threatening injuries, the nine. I had the best intentions, getting them to stop beating on someone else. Since I didn't actually kill them does that make it ok since I had the best intentions, had to make a timely decision with limited information and it could have ended worse than if I hadn't interfered?"

And this boys and girls is what we call a comparison. My comparison in this case is based on a fictional narrative using all points of the question as an outline. This response also ends with a question as to whether or not it would be acceptable since it meets the parameters of the original question.

Wow I really had the 1st grade teacher voice in my head on this one. Anyway, since you are trying to get a reaction out of me I think I will bow out of this conversation and let you and all the cop jockeys try and rationalize any reason for an adult to use a taser on an 11 year old child. Peace.