misombra's inequivocable hatred for the police deepens.

[misombra]

[url]http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8040&Ite mid=2[/url]

this guy ran down an elk on his way to an emergency. i wonder what the emergency was, and if it was worth that elks' life...

[Gribble]

This is getting out of control. They are killing more ppl w/these 'safer' taser than they are w/their sidearms. I'm writing a letter to our newspaper & MP:

Apparently the kid was wielding a knife and refused to put it down. Without tasers the police would more than likely have had to shoot him and he would have almost certainly died. With tasers they had an extremely good chance of taking him alive. Unfortunately it did not work out that way. The fact remains he was brandishing a deadly weapon. That's what happens. I don't feel the least shred of pity for him.

People complain about tasers and pepper spray. The alternative is either a bullet or a nightstick to the head.

[IndiReloaded]

As with everything, there is good and bad. There are good police, there are shitty police. There are good doctors, there are shitty doctors. There are good presidents, and there is george bush.

I think you get the point.

No, I disagree 1aj. The police are using these as some 'soft' alternative to using a firearm. Its a slippery slope. They should really be using them ONLY under the same conditions they would choose to use a firearm i.e. as a last resort. They are neglecting alternatives like negotiation & non-lethal restraint. This boy only had a knife. Even if he attacked the cops, do you know how hard it is to kill someone from stabbing? Its pretty difficult unless they get lucky & the police are trained in self-defense.

One of my main points in my letter is that I think the incidence of use of tasers should be no difference from a firearm. They should only be used as a *safer alternative to a gun*, not to be used more frequently. I'd like to see the data on number of taser use vs. sidearms fired. I bet the taser use is much higher & it shouldn't be, IMO.

I can't find that data tho I'm looking. Anything else I should say? If you're interested, comments are welcome.

[IndiReloaded]

Apparently the kid was wielding a knife and refused to put it down. Without tasers the police would more than likely have had to shoot him and he would have almost certainly died. With tasers they had an extremely good chance of taking him alive. Unfortunately it did not work out that way. The fact remains he was brandishing a deadly weapon. That's what happens. I don't feel the least shred of pity for him.

People complain about tasers and pepper spray. The alternative is either a bullet or a nightstick to the head.

As I say, Grib, its the frequency of use that concerns me. Even if this was a warranted case (i.e. a firearm would have otherwise been drawn), there are many other cases where they weren't. An aggressive drunk, and old man who was resisting arrest for being given a speeding ticket. A guy freaking out in an airport (he died) but no weapon. Most of these cases would not justify use of a firearm.

[misombra]

i do. i feel bad for his family.

the cops have no right to determine when somebody should die, especially a 17 year old kid. they're not judges, but they sure do give out death sentences.

if i could kill someone, and get away with it, every time i felt i was in imminent danger there would be a lot of dead bodies on my trail.

[Lipp]

If people die from tasers it sounds more as a product fault so that they might need different ones with varying power (e.g weak one for the upset guy in his 50's, strong one for the steroid-pumped armed robber) or poor use (such as aiming for the upper chest or head rather than legs/arms/groin).

As for the kid with a knife, it's a tough call. I'd prefer to disarm someone who's wielding a blunt weapon any day of the week, slightest mess-up in a knife situation can be deadly.

[misombra]

if he was going after somebody with a knife or directly threatening somebody with it, that to me would justify killing him.

but the cop killed him just because he wouldn't do what they say. then they justify it by saying they were in danger. that's how cops get away it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c_UdWo4Zek"]YouTube - DEAD PREZ - POLICE STATE[/ame]

[1averagejoe]

No, I disagree 1aj. The police are using these as some 'soft' alternative to using a firearm. Its a slippery slope. They should really be using them ONLY under the same conditions they would choose to use a firearm i.e. as a last resort. They are neglecting alternatives like negotiation & non-lethal restraint. This boy only had a knife. Even if he attacked the cops, do you know how hard it is to kill someone from stabbing? Its pretty difficult unless they get lucky & the police are trained in self-defense.

One of my main points in my letter is that I think the incidence of use of tasers should be no difference from a firearm. They should only be used as a *safer alternative to a gun*, not to be used more frequently. I'd like to see the data on number of taser use vs. sidearms fired. I bet the taser use is much higher & it shouldn't be, IMO.

I can't find that data tho I'm looking. Anything else I should say? If you're interested, comments are welcome.

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. I never said what they did was right, I never said that tasers should be used so freely. All I said is that there are clearly good policemen and bad policemen.

Just because of this one incident where a bad police officer killed someone doesn't mean that all of them are terrible. And yes, I agree with you that tasers and stun guns should all be used just like any other weapon, as a last resort. And I'm sure there are officers out there that feel the same way.

[misombra]

aj, we've already determined there there are good cops and bad cops. the good ones don't justify the bad ones. the bad ones make the good ones look bad.

do they get away with murder based on the excuse that there are good ones and bad ones?

sure there are, but very little. as evidenced by this chart...

[IndiReloaded]

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. I never said what they did was right, I never said that tasers should be used so freely. All I said is that there are clearly good policemen and bad policemen.

Just because of this one incident where a bad police officer killed someone doesn't mean that all of them are terrible. And yes, I agree with you that tasers and stun guns should all be used just like any other weapon, as a last resort. And I'm sure there are officers out there that feel the same way.

What Misombra said. Its not enough to shrug & say, well, its the bad cops making the good ones look bad. This is not the kind of profession where any kind of 'bad apples' can be tolerated. We are far harsher on teachers who sleep w/their students (they lose their jobs) than police who misuse force. They hold a lot of power, therefore they need to be held to a higher standard of responsibility. Somehow, putting these guys on 'administrative leave' doesn't cut it & this is why ppl are losing respect for the police. Its a lose-lose unless they do something, and soon.

I happen to have a lot of respect for officers, public officials, etc. At least I feel like I should owe them that respect, in terms of supporting a necessary societal branch of service. However, I can honestly say that any 'respect' I would give to police officers (and I know several, personally) while they are acting in their official capacity would be more due to a fear they might act irrationally than from a genuine respect for their position.

IMO, police, public officials, military officers, even professions like teachers, doctors & nurses (i.e. those where ppl depend on their ability to be professional) are NOT permitted to be 'human' in the same way the average Joe is on the street. At least not while doing their job, and for some (e.g. elected officials), not even when they aren't. Part of their duty is to be a tangible example of Society Standards (note the capitals), not to grub around in the dirt with the 'rest of us'. That's how one garners respect--to be able to control oneself where others cannot. And this justifies their holding the power they are given by the rest of society--they can demonstrate they are able to wield it with good judgement.

FWIW.

[misombra]

[url]http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8131&Ite mid=2[/url]

Jury: APD Didn't Violate Girl's Rights PDF Print E-mail

permalink
Written by Scott Sandlin
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
A federal jury handed a resounding victory to Albuquerque Police officers this afternoon, finding they did not violate the constitutional rights of 12-year-old murder defendant Jade Gonzales.

Jade never denied shooting her father Samuel in 1999, but said it had been accidental.

Police obtained a warrant ordering them to transport Gonzales “forthwith” to the juvenile detention center, but they began intense -- her attorneys said abusive -- questioning that continued in the valley substation parking lot.


Gonzales testified that her repeated requests for a bathroom were ignored to the point that she urinated in her pants. She was not read her Miranda rights, and her attorney Ed Chavez was never contacted despite her saying “Where’s Ed?” and “I want him to be there.”

Kathryn Levy, the deputy city attorney defending the officers, said police had a duty to investigate Sam Gonzales’ death.

Levy said there was no harm in the failure to read Jade her Miranda rights because any statement she gave police could not be used against her due to her age.

A trial judge dismissed the murder charge because of the way the questioning was conducted, only to be reversed. But higher courts carved away some potential evidence, and Jade Gonzales turned 21 without ever being tried in the court with jurisdiction over the case. The charges were dropped.

[1averagejoe]

I'm not saying you should shrug these things off. These officers deserve to live with the consequences of their actions.

But, you can't stereotype all police for being bad. There are a lot of good police officers out there. It's no different that stereotyping a black man. It's just as extreme as assuming that all black men are gang members. You wouldn't assume such a thing would you? If you do, you shouldn't. Because there are plenty of good black men and officers out there. There's no reason to give officers a bad name. Can you imagine the chaos if there was none?

And don't start with anarchy, that would not work in our society. That would only cause chaos. I respect and appreciate everything the good police officers do. They put their lives on the line everyday to keep others safe. That is honorable.

But I also feel anyone that those that abuse their powers should suffer the highest consequences for their actions. They're there to enforce the law, not break it.

[misombra]

aj, for the billionth time. i'm not saying all cops are bad and we could live without them.

but they get away with bad shit! and everybody shrugs it off and says, "oh well, they deserved it." or "can't let one bad apple spoil the bunch!"

people are just okay with letting the police turn into a gang in their town. crazy.

[1averagejoe]

I'm sorry sombra, yesterday was a long, terrible day, with lack of sleep, I wasn't all there. I get it now love. I agree.

[IndiReloaded]

It's no different that stereotyping a black man. It's just as extreme as assuming that all black men are gang members. You wouldn't assume such a thing would you? If you do, you shouldn't. Because there are plenty of good black men and officers out there. There's no reason to give officers a bad name. Can you imagine the chaos if there was none?

1aj, I saw your response above. I just wanted to quickly point out the key problem of an argument like this, b/c some ppl do make it.

The difference b/t your black stereotype and good/bad cops is a big one: A police officer CHOOSES to enter that profession and they take an oath to uphold the law. And all that responsibility that goes with that from my last post.

I dunno about the US, but in Canada police take an oath like the following:

"I, .. <Officer's Name> .. of .. <Police Service> .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

IMO, anyone who breaks that charge should be dismissed. If they didn't bend the damn rules so much, everyone would have more respect for our police. Its quite a simple problem. I mean, really, don't you want to be able to trust your local police? I certainly do.