Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
quote:
Originally posted by trader:
I think the question is the following>>>

The 10 year old was 4'6" and weighted a ***ping 65 lbs...
The Mother called the Police because she was throwing a temper tandrum and would not go to bed..

First Question is why is the mother even calling the police...just for god sake be a parent..

Second Question
When the officer arrived and saw the situation why would he even get involved. This was a parental issue. The parent needed to act like a parent

Third Question
It is hard to understand why a police officer could not defend his family jewels from a 65 lb little girl and had to resort to using a tazer.

Fourth Question
Why didn't he just take off his belt,hand it to the mother and say simply...Be a Parent for godsake..take control of your child and household.

Fifth Question
Why would the officer take instructions from a mother who was apparently at her wits in and had lost total parental control, if she ever had it in her entire existence with the child. When a officer hears a mother say taze my child, the first thing that should come to mind of the officer is...I am in control here, and I need not be taken instructions from this mother.

Question Six
Why didn't the officer simply get into his patrol car and leave. Make a report that says, parent cannot control child with household. Parent has very weak parenting skills, needs counseling in how to be a parent and establish rules, guidelines and perimeters in which this child must exhibit in order to keep from getting a whipping daily.

Whew! Where in the H did this guy get the impression he could be a police officer and most of all where in the dickens did the police screening officers get the impression this weakling of a man could be a officer. I can hear his fellow officers screaming for back up...Officer need assistance...Officer request...What? What? you are sending who? Never Mind, I can fight it out myself.



Yet these officers that post on this board DEFENDED these actions. What does that say about them?


It says they're more in touch with reality, an understanding of today's tactics and tools that trader's 40 plus year old reminiscences of how things were back when the cop was the guy in town who couldn't get a job doing anything else, and your biased hatred of cops.
Sassy....That comment was below the belt don't you think?..It appears you do not have too much respect for the older generation of officers who kept your butt safe and in line while you were growing up. Lets discuss policies and issues, but to make personal attack's on the quality of men back then is out of bounds.

To do so, will open the door for me to talk about some of the quality of officers who I inneract with on a weekly basis throughtout 5 states. I get to see the good, bad and ugly...and believe me, we had it in the pass. But guess what "Things ain't changed much except for the modern equipment and so called "Progressive policies as some like to refer to them."

Painting each policy with the same brush of so called progression, as if that gives it a higher place on the shelf. I get to observe some of those polices in action, and sometimes I wonder how anything gets done anymore with all the hand tying that has been placed on the officers. The Officials are worried more about C.T.A'S than getting the job done.

One thing I have learned in life is progression is not ALL WAYS better.You of all people know that...The benefit of something is in the eye of the beholder using it, BUT the benefit of that same item is also viewed from the other side of the fence by others who judge the benefit of that tool, by how it is used against them.

Abuse it too long and too many times under the guise of "Well! that is our Department's Policy" and you will see the public out cry take it away from you. I don't care how benefitual it is.
Politicans are self serving animals who control the purse strings and power to change your policies and tools immediately. Tamper with their ability to get re-elected and watch what happens.
(Example: Civil unrest in the 60's and early 70's produced a lot of sniper fire, ambushes, officers getting shot on traffic stops, etc...The Polticians thought the appearance of the shotgun in the dashboard rack or rifles being carried by the officers to reach snipers on the high buildings was too offensive. Thus, the officers were only allowed to carry handguns (38,s and 357,s, along with those 12 round cartridge belts or speed loaders as you laugh at.

The rest of the ammunition and shotgun with buckshot only, had be placed in the trunk of the patrol unit, so the public would not get offended.(Our safty back then was no concern of theirs then and guess what niether is yours today. If you think any different then you aren't as street wise as I take you to be)

How did we adapt for not having rifles to reach the building tops? We personally bought deer slugs so we could reach the tops of the buildings. We unloaded our 357 rounds and repowdered them to become hot loads so the bullet would go further,go through walls and car bodies. A lot of officers did not have college educations, but getting the job done they did, using common sense and knowledge gained from working the streets, which seems to be lacking in some officers today. (So! you won't get offended we had those too)

I place this particular decision to treat the child in the same square box as all other confrontations right there along with suspending a child from school for having a midol tablet, having a plastic water pistol for show and tell, bringing a boy scout utenzil to school to eat lunch with, a first grade lttle boy kissing a first grade little girl charging him with sexual aharassment...
Yep! all of those too were defended by the officials who set the rules and guidelines and then stated in defense, "Well! that is our policy". I got news for ya, polices are just that polices, and can be changed if they are not getting the job done without offending the senses of "fairness and doing what common sense says is "just".

We all have a line in which we know what is fair, just and unjust. Some polices offend those senses and need to be changed. I predict they will be changed as time goes on...Why? because the politicians can't stand the heat brought on by those unsensible policies and to protect themselves will swing too far either to the left or right. Thus, removing the one tool that benefited that officer greatly.

They forgot one little thing when setting the SQUARE BOX RULES.....COMMON SENSE. If age has proven to me anything, is that life is a MIXTURE OF GREYS...VERY LITTLE BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES...Yet, rules are continued to be written by our so call educated individuals with Black and White Guidelines.

Well! the first thing you come to understand if you have been around some school boards and upper officials in the Board of Education System, along with some officials in local City Governments is just because they have enough degrees hanging on their walls that would pass as WallPaper, that it does not equate to a Sign of intelligence and walking around sense. Most of you have heard the phrase "EDUCATED IDIOTS" and have met a few of them I am sure. Don't believe me, read some of the Polices of Law Enforcement Agencies, Military Guidelines, School Boards and some will make the "Blood Shoot Out Of Your Eyes. as Glenn Beck is so fond of saying".

I place tazing a child right up there as one of those given the present situation that officer faced.

For your information sassy..How would we have handled it if the child needed to be controled beyond hand control? Its called a BLANKET, throw the blanket over the child then simply secure the arms with your body. Wrap your legs around the childs legs, then secure the hands once you have them under control. The child is restricted in movement and can not see to fight.
Oh! Sorry I forgot I don't have a college degree and worst of all I might have to touch them....But! if you don't mind, I will just use common sense and what street experience has shown me and the older officers what to use for mental patients, unruly drunks, and other situations where the person was uncontrolable.

I guess I need to start thinking like the "Progressive Officers Of Today... Now! Where Did I Place That Tazer?"
Last edited by trader
Trader,

I don't think they issue blankets to officers, and I know my duty belt does not have a pouch for one. Common sense and police tactics dictates that a lone officer would NOT leave a violent or disorderly individual to go in search of a blanket to snuggle them up with. So, your answer is NOT an option...at all.

Your assertion that this issue is the fault of bad parenting may be somewhat accurate, however I deal with CHINS (Child In Need Of Supervision) regularly. Many of these have parents who do try to discipline their children and only call for assistance as a last resort.

As far as your claim of a below the belt blow, I assert that you started it by your diatribe list of questions denigrating current officers in general and the one in question in particular.

Here's your answers...

#1. Not every parent is capable of physically manhandling even a pre-teen child. Some have been erroneously convinced that if they do discipline a child, they are subject to be arrested. Furthermore, a child acting in such a fashion is a violation of most state's juvenile and even adult laws, therefore as a tax payer, she had a right to a police presence, and police action, if necessary.

#2. The officer was called to the scene. There was a disturbance. This creates a relationship between law enforcement and the complainant that leave legal liability if the officer does not make sure the situation is resolved prior to leaving.

#3. He did not use the Taser for self defense. He used it to gain compliance from a disorderly subject who was resisting arrest.

#4. The officer has no authority to demand that an individual resolve the issue him/her self. Otherwise, we'd never fill out an accident report, or arrest a thief. "Sorry, you'll have to handle it yourself" is not an answer.

#5. The officer made his own decision to use the Taser. The mother approved of it, and suggested it, "if needed".

#6. Yeah, right. Drive off an leave an unresolved situation with a disorderly individual causing a disturbance. So it continues to escalate, and the mother or the child ends up injured because of it...Hello lawsuit, how many million do you want? And for how long will my department be monitored by the US Justice Department and the FBI?

Trader, we've had some good conversations and made good points before. I respect your posts in most instances, but you are off base with this one.
With all due respect to both Trader and Sassy, One question remains that can bite both scenarios in the tush.
1. Did the child stop the action that resulted in being tased? Even though the mom approved of it, I can see where some individuals would still try to sue the department and officer.
2. tasing a 10 year old might cause the child to revolt later in life because of it, it also could make the child walk the line in the future. You see there is such a fine line when it comes to the discipline of a kid.
quote:
Originally posted by unclegus:
With all due respect to both Trader and Sassy, One question remains that can bite both scenarios in the tush.
1. Did the child stop the action that resulted in being tased? Even though the mom approved of it, I can see where some individuals would still try to sue the department and officer.
2. tasing a 10 year old might cause the child to revolt later in life because of it, it also could make the child walk the line in the future. You see there is such a fine line when it comes to the discipline of a kid.


UG,

Yes, the child did cease the disorderly conduct and submit to arrest without further incident.

As to your observation about the fine line, allowing the child to successfully get away with disorderly conduct, assault against an officer, resisting arrest as well as refusal to obey a parent is likely to cause the child to repeat the actions in the future.
I certainly hope Sassy Kims is NOT the "norm" within the Florence Police department. This seems to be a individual with some very out of touch views on what a police officer is, and what their duties are. He/she is demonstrating why people in general do not trust law enforcement officers. It's the "take care of your own" mentality that allow out of control officers to do as they please and not be held accountable for it, and tazing a 10 year old child is an officer out of control and out of touch.
quote:
Originally posted by im4uhonee:
I certainly hope Sassy Kims is NOT the "norm" within the Florence Police department. This seems to be a individual with some very out of touch views on what a police officer is, and what their duties are. He/she is demonstrating why people in general do not trust law enforcement officers. It's the "take care of your own" mentality that allow out of control officers to do as they please and not be held accountable for it, and tazing a 10 year old child is an officer out of control and out of touch.


Who said I work for Florence?

I find your attitude the reason a lot of police officers are leaving the profession, and the reason many viable applicants are not apply for the job. You expect subservient attitudes, and for officers to accept being humiliated, denigrated and dominated so that you feel good about yourself. Then, to top it all off, you expect all this at starvation wages. I am thankful that your position is one of a very small minority in the general public.

No officer is capable of action without "being held accountable". The officer in question was exonerated by his chief as legitimately and lawfully using the level of non lethal force that he did, but held accountable for not having activated his personal video camera, as departmental policy required.
quote:
Originally posted by im4uhonee:
I certainly hope Sassy Kims is NOT the "norm" within the Florence Police department. This seems to be a individual with some very out of touch views on what a police officer is, and what their duties are. He/she is demonstrating why people in general do not trust law enforcement officers. It's the "take care of your own" mentality that allow out of control officers to do as they please and not be held accountable for it, and tazing a 10 year old child is an officer out of control and out of touch.


I actually hope that Sassy is the norm within the FPD. Have any of you seen some of these pre-teen juviniles? They are big, they are mean in a lot of cases, they are rebellious against schools, parents and llaw enforcement. I know of an 11 year old that has 8 felonies against them right this moment, and 3 of them have been dropped by the courts. I would not want to meet that little rebellion in some dark alley with the charges pending against him. Sometimes kids just turn out that way even with the parents doing all they know to do and everyone here is just looking at an age status, instead of looking at maybe gang involvement, rebellion, mean streaks, tough guy image. It is happening more and more and just be thankful it is not happening to you because it maybe your child that pulls this on you someday regardless of how good of an upbringing you have given them. It is proven now that peer pressure trumps parental pressure these days and we just can not keep on allowing these little tough kids to rule our lives and hold parents hostage without having someone to call.
quote:
Originally posted by im4uhonee:
I certainly hope Sassy Kims is NOT the "norm" within the Florence Police department. This seems to be a individual with some very out of touch views on what a police officer is, and what their duties are. He/she is demonstrating why people in general do not trust law enforcement officers. It's the "take care of your own" mentality that allow out of control officers to do as they please and not be held accountable for it, and tazing a 10 year old child is an officer out of control and out of touch.


I respectfully disagree. Parents don't "parent" anymore. I have worked with Juvenile Sex Offenders and Psych Patients and prayed no one would get hurt on my shift...If the officer and the parents (since they gave permission) felt the use of force was appropriate and necessary -- I trust them to have made the decision they did...I have had "kids" twice and 3x my size attack me and prayed for back up...kids today are hyped up on meds and have no discipline at home and think they can get away with anything -- and parents don't help matters by taking a hands off approach. Not every 10 year old is 60 pounds soaking wet with a smart mouth -- some are twice that with anger management issues and have to be handled that way. This kid wasn't a straight C student with attention issues -- this went beyond that apparently.
Sassy...
You made some good points...but it also reflects how the departments work today verse how the older officer's would have handled it...

I don't need a blanket on the belt...every house hold has a blanket, sheet, quilt,etc..

Don't take my comments as personal toward all officers as my respect is there for our fellow brothers today.
The policies and procedures are what we are discussing. If I believe an officer made a wrong decision, then I will say it, but then again you have your view, which you should give from the department and officer's point of view.
I believe this a good discussion for other readers to get a inside view of how law enforcement is handled today verse yesterday...

Some will agree with you and some with me...but that is neither here or there...it does get them seeing the difficulty in handling certain situations and what decisions were made to achieve whatever the officer intended to achieve.
The departments today operate more by the book, yesteryear officers operated more by what they had to do to get the job done. We didn't have the restrictions of so many department polices that it interfered with us getting the job done. Officers today do not have that freedom.

Example: Officer would take off the belt and whip the kid for doing something, and send them on the way. I have seen many a teenager knocked on his back for back talking. The situation was handled then and there, no juvenile court system, no record. The result was it worked and we never handled the kid again.
Can it be done today...of course not....but that is the difference today.

If we caught a kid with beer or something illegal. We took them to the parent. Usually, the parent handled it themselves. No! Juvenile record, no more problems. Did it work all the time...No! Did it work most of the time...You betcha..!!
One of the problems we have today is we lowered societies standards down instead of bringing the individuals standards up. Who is to blame..society as a whole is to blame...including myself.
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
quote:
Originally posted by im4uhonee:
I certainly hope Sassy Kims is NOT the "norm" within the Florence Police department. This seems to be a individual with some very out of touch views on what a police officer is, and what their duties are. He/she is demonstrating why people in general do not trust law enforcement officers. It's the "take care of your own" mentality that allow out of control officers to do as they please and not be held accountable for it, and tazing a 10 year old child is an officer out of control and out of touch.


I respectfully disagree. Parents don't "parent" anymore. I have worked with Juvenile Sex Offenders and Psych Patients and prayed no one would get hurt on my shift...If the officer and the parents (since they gave permission) felt the use of force was appropriate and necessary -- I trust them to have made the decision they did...I have had "kids" twice and 3x my size attack me and prayed for back up...kids today are hyped up on meds and have no discipline at home and think they can get away with anything -- and parents don't help matters by taking a hands off approach. Not every 10 year old is 60 pounds soaking wet with a smart mouth -- some are twice that with anger management issues and have to be handled that way. This kid wasn't a straight C student with attention issues -- this went beyond that apparently.


I don't have a dog in this hunt but perhaps one of the reasons some parents take a "hands off approach" is because DHR, nosy neighbors, or the kids themselves will scream child abuse if a parent uses corporal punishment. I don't disagree that a lot of parents just don't care these days but some kids have figured out how to work the system.
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Sassy doesn't work for Florence but I agree -- Sassy is a good "norm" for any department...


I agree with DC and Ginger, thanks Sassy. I had a run in with the law when I was 19. I wish I had been tasered when I was 10, of course they didn't have tasers back then. I paid my fine, learned my lesson, and have been a law abiding citizen ever since.
quote:
Originally posted by Shugpie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
The officer in question was exonerated by his chief as legitimately and lawfully using the level of non lethal force that he did


That's kinda like the fox guarding the chickens!!


You obviously have no idea about the duties and responsibilities of a Chief of Police, if you think that.
As I said in an earlier post, the issue is with the policies in place, not the officer on the street that follows the policies.

What I find so amazing is that everyone wants to blame the officers involved but never voice their opinion to those that make the policies in regards to the issue. How many folks here that have spoken out against overuse of a taser have actually expressed that concern to their local Chief or council? If you have a concern, its one thing to come here and gauge the publics opinion on it and another thing to speak out to those that make the policies.

I have to remember, though, who started this topic and what their true 'intentions' were in the first place. Getting two LEO's to argue about this issue seems like a big win for the troll patrol....

Kirk
mekirk2..
Actually in my opinion it is a good dialogue between the present day of law Enforcement thinking and policies, and the old way of thinking with very few if any policies.

Sassy, does a good job at explaining procedure today and how the officer has to respond according to set guidelines and policies. That officer does not have the freedom to do what we did years ago, and that was to simply solve the problem the best way we saw fit.
We back then had very few guidelines other than don't hurt someone unnecessarily, try not to compound the situation,be tough but be fair as emotions are running high with all parties involved, and others which were very loosely enforced.

Sassy, strikes me as a very good officer and is very concern that officers to what is right according to departmental policy. The difference comes in our way of thinking. We did not worry about departmental policy back then. The officers of that era would find it difficult working in the present environment and in most cases would be fired for not following departmental policy. If the yesterday officer saw a better way to do something, they could take the departmental policy and shove where the sun don't shine.

Is surreal a troll. I don't know and make no judgement toward him just because he disagrees with me or agrees with me. He stated some very valid points from the public prospective point of view and I thought it would be interesting to see just what response I would get from Sassy if I threw in a old law dog's point of view. I don't know how many years sassy has been on the force, but I am sure he has the street knowledge gained from some years of getting knocked around a bit. Somethings you learn in the academy and the rest you learn OJT and find out very quickly what they taught you in the academy was text book situations, and very rarely is any real call a text book situation. so! you learn to balance your academy training and make it fit into the street events the best you can.

One thing is for certain, Sassy has a more liberal view of using the tazer than I do. I believe in hand control first...then move to the tazer if you have too...I get the impression, Sassy believes after Voice Command, comes the tazer. That is really the difference in our opinions, thus I believe if an officer uses the tazer too quickly, it is abuse...Sassy's position is it is better to use the tazer so neither party gets injured, which is a valid point.
The rub comes when the public perceives the use of the tazer too quickly is abuse. It may not be the case, but that is immaterial if the public thinks it is abuse. I have learned a long time ago, what is percieved as reality is a who lot more important than reality. Politicians and dating partners both female and males have learned that and practice it on a reguler bases.
Trader...

You address this persons accusations as if they had merit.

Five times in this thread I have been verbally attacked by this poster, yet you lend credence to their accusations by giving an answer. I gave you more credit than that.

quote:
#1...I think the only LEO background he has is from riding in the backseat of the patrol car.

#2...He is a career troll......

#3...Yet he doesnt even bother to argue the fact that he is a career troll Roll Eyes

#4...Keep tossing those stones, troll, there are only so many of them under that bridge.....

#5...I have to remember, though, who started this topic and what their true 'intentions' were in the first place. Getting two LEO's to argue about this issue seems like a big win for the troll patrol....



Its clear who the troll is.


BTW mekirk...be careful that you don't wind up like Zippeedeedodah. I will not tolerate your harassment/stalking.


Now...to get back on the original subject.
In my mind this is a 10 year old child. 65 lbs and 4'6." .Did the officer violate her civil rights? Don't know and really don't care, she is a child. She lives under the roof of a parent and the number one rule in any household who have children is that child or children should be taught to respect your parents, you will do as you are told and keep your mouth shut, you will be respectful to all adults and to authorative fiqures such as law enforcement officers and teachers.
Violate that rule and the consequences can be extremely unpleasant.

Now! the problem with that rule is some people have no clue about how to be a parent. Some are weak, some just don't care and are good poster people for manditory sterilization.

Unfortunately, the responding officer has no control over the qualification or abilities of the parent. In this case, it is apparent this parent did not have control and was allowing her self to be manipulated by a child. When the parent called the police, the child's respect for that parent became even less. Why? Because the parent just verified that she could no longer handle the child or was afraid to do so.

The officer when he saw the child was going to keep misbehaving should have turned to the parent and stated, you either be a parent now or you have lost all respect.

Instead the mother told him it was OK! to taze the 65 lb little girl. He goes on to state he was attacked by the child.
This is where I totally disagree with the officer's action. The Department stated , he acted within policy guidelines when he use the tazer.
The problem is this action so insensed the public perspective of a grown man shooting a small 65lb child with a tazer that it violated everything you believe an officer should have done.

Hand Control and restrain using a blanket, throw,quilt, towel would have worked just as well and would have given the public a better opinion of the officer in how he handled the situation.
If he needed to take her with him, simply restrain her by the way suggested, put the cuffs on and carry her to the car. I simply have difficulty in understanding how a grown man could not hand control a small female, and had to resort to the tazer. Apparently, this view is more prevalent than just me, as we would not be discussing this if this was not so.

Since the beginning of time, children have misbehaved. It is not the police or school officials who should be setting the standards of respect for others, but the parents. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and when these isolated incidents happen, it is the law enforcement officer who has to make decisions and take actions that are not always seen as correct on the surface by the public.

Just because I disagree with how this officer handled this situation does not mean I am against using the tazer. In fact,I believe when used properly it is the most important tool they have to prevent injuries of the person being arrested and the officer or officers involved. In the proper venue, I would light you up to point, you would be humming like a power substation.
Last edited by trader
quote:
Originally posted by trader:

Is surreal a troll.


Surreal is Jetboy, aka Misterme, aka Shaniqua, aka Dea, aka Mabaline, the list goes on and on. He is a troll reincarnate, and comes back over and over and over.

SJ - as for your comment about being 'attacked', folks know who and what you are. You have gone out of your way numerous times to attack me, Sassy, and numerous others in your previous lives, so coming here and trying to get sympathy probably wont get you far.

I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are, and there is more than enough evidence for me to prove the statements that I make. My opinion is that you are a troll who goes out of your way to start trouble, either through antagonizing LEOs or starting arguements with people by trying to catch them contradict themselves. Your history here already speaks for itself.....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by trader:
mekirk2..
Actually in my opinion it is a good dialogue between the present day of law Enforcement thinking and policies, and the old way of thinking with very few if any policies.

Sassy, does a good job at explaining procedure today and how the officer has to respond according to set guidelines and policies. That officer does not have the freedom to do what we did years ago, and that was to simply solve the problem the best way we saw fit.
We back then had very few guidelines other than don't hurt someone unnecessarily, try not to compound the situation,be tough but be fair as emotions are running high with all parties involved, and others which were very loosely enforced.

Sassy, strikes me as a very good officer and is very concern that officers to what is right according to departmental policy. The difference comes in our way of thinking. We did not worry about departmental policy back then. The officers of that era would find it difficult working in the present environment and in most cases would be fired for not following departmental policy. If the yesterday officer saw a better way to do something, they could take the departmental policy and shove where the sun don't shine.

Is surreal a troll. I don't know and make no judgement toward him just because he disagrees with me or agrees with me. He stated some very valid points from the public prospective point of view and I thought it would be interesting to see just what response I would get from Sassy if I threw in a old law dog's point of view. I don't know how many years sassy has been on the force, but I am sure he has the street knowledge gained from some years of getting knocked around a bit. Somethings you learn in the academy and the rest you learn OJT and find out very quickly what they taught you in the academy was text book situations, and very rarely is any real call a text book situation. so! you learn to balance your academy training and make it fit into the street events the best you can.

One thing is for certain, Sassy has a more liberal view of using the tazer than I do. I believe in hand control first...then move to the tazer if you have too...I get the impression, Sassy believes after Voice Command, comes the tazer. That is really the difference in our opinions, thus I believe if an officer uses the tazer too quickly, it is abuse...Sassy's position is it is better to use the tazer so neither party gets injured, which is a valid point.
The rub comes when the public perceives the use of the tazer too quickly is abuse. It may not be the case, but that is immaterial if the public thinks it is abuse. I have learned a long time ago, what is percieved as reality is a who lot more important than reality. Politicians and dating partners both female and males have learned that and practice it on a reguler bases.


On topic, I have the feeling that Sassy follows departmental policy. Be it regarding Tasers, police chases or using his departmental internet access. I dont agree with some policies, such as how pursuits are conducted. I am out on Tasers. If the taser is as safe as it is marketed to be, I think that it is a great tool. If it comes back to be more dangerous than the manufacturers have said, that opinion might change. But I cant fault the officers on the street for following that policy. If I have a serious problem with it, I am going to voice that opinion to the powers that be within that department. I may come here, to the forums, and get a feel for how the public feels about it, but I am not going to come here and belittle the LEO community as a whole because I dont agree with what their policies are. I am not going to try to dig up every single 'bad seed' within the LEO community in an attempt to discredit their job. Go back and look this topic starters history of posts, as an LEO you may develop a different opinion about his stance....

Kirk
Tasers are not entirely safe. What about the thirty something year old father of four in Russellville a few years back who was wrongly accused of stealing a vehicle? He was pulled over by Russellville police and ordered out of the car, when he questioned why he was being arrested the officers saw this as resisting and used their taser. They didn't know he had a history of heart disease, had two prior heart attacks and the tasing caused him to go into cardiac arrest and he died. Of coarse, this was within their department policy and they were cleared of their actions, but four children no longer have their father.

From reading the police report posted earlier about the 10 year old it would seem the correct thing for the officer to do would be to call child welfare services and waited for them to arrive. He should have never laid a hand on her to get her to comply with her mother trying to get her to take a bath or go to bed. How does he know that the mother wasn't abusing her daughter prior to his arrival?
quote:
Originally posted by im4uhonee:
Tasers are not entirely safe. What about the thirty something year old father of four in Russellville a few years back who was wrongly accused of stealing a vehicle? He was pulled over by Russellville police and ordered out of the car, when he questioned why he was being arrested the officers saw this as resisting and used their taser. They didn't know he had a history of heart disease, had two prior heart attacks and the tasing caused him to go into cardiac arrest and he died. Of coarse, this was within their department policy and they were cleared of their actions, but four children no longer have their father.

From reading the police report posted earlier about the 10 year old it would seem the correct thing for the officer to do would be to call child welfare services and waited for them to arrive. He should have never laid a hand on her to get her to comply with her mother trying to get her to take a bath or go to bed. How does he know that the mother wasn't abusing her daughter prior to his arrival?


Exactly correct. I believe this officer should be charged with violating this childs rights. He should never have touched this child to start with. It was a DHR matter. The mother should be charged with making a abusing the 911 system.
Last edited by Surreal Justice
Surreal! yes she had civil rights..

She has the right to remain silent,She has the right to be seen and not heard, she has the right to remain civil, she has the right to be respectfull of her parent, she has the right to take a bath when told, she has the right to obey the officer when he got there, she has the right to say Yes Mamm and Yes Sir, She has the right to keep her mouth shut, She has the right to make good grades, she has the right to go to school and behave, she has the right to have friends that are not disrespectful to others, she has the right to practice good hygene, she has the right to clean her room, she has the right to make her bed, she has the right to help her mother cook, do laundry, clean house, cut the grass and keep their property clean, etc..

Until she is able to support herself and live under own roof, she has the obligation to behave.

Yes! DHR should be called to evaluate the home, as the child may need to be removed due to weak parenting, abusive parenting, or various other valid reasons to do so. Unfortunately, the places they put the children sometimes does more harm than good. Why? Because they are put with older children who are a whole lot street smarter, already practiced more tricks to get what they want and teach them to the child. All good intentions have thorns that go with it.

It is a **** if you do, **** if you don't. You wonder which one is the best...You really do not know until the results of that experience produces an adult who either becomes a productive member of society or another sorry piece of humanity which law enforcement personnel will get to know as well as their own family members.

Unless they get to the little girl in time and get her so busy with activities such as music, sports, art, culinary skills or whatever strikes her fancy, and gives her the spark that makes her want to learn, then officers that follow the tazing officer will be handling her again. The next time, her hand may not be empty...
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
Trader...

You address this persons accusations as if they had merit.

Five times in this thread I have been verbally attacked by this poster, yet you lend credence to their accusations by giving an answer. I gave you more credit than that.

quote:
#1...I think the only LEO background he has is from riding in the backseat of the patrol car.

#2...He is a career troll......

#3...Yet he doesnt even bother to argue the fact that he is a career troll Roll Eyes

#4...Keep tossing those stones, troll, there are only so many of them under that bridge.....

#5...I have to remember, though, who started this topic and what their true 'intentions' were in the first place. Getting two LEO's to argue about this issue seems like a big win for the troll patrol....



Its clear who the troll is.


BTW mekirk...be careful that you don't wind up like Zippeedeedodah. I will not tolerate your harassment/stalking.


Now...to get back on the original subject.
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
quote:
Originally posted by im4uhonee:
Tasers are not entirely safe. What about the thirty something year old father of four in Russellville a few years back who was wrongly accused of stealing a vehicle? He was pulled over by Russellville police and ordered out of the car, when he questioned why he was being arrested the officers saw this as resisting and used their taser. They didn't know he had a history of heart disease, had two prior heart attacks and the tasing caused him to go into cardiac arrest and he died. Of coarse, this was within their department policy and they were cleared of their actions, but four children no longer have their father.

From reading the police report posted earlier about the 10 year old it would seem the correct thing for the officer to do would be to call child welfare services and waited for them to arrive. He should have never laid a hand on her to get her to comply with her mother trying to get her to take a bath or go to bed. How does he know that the mother wasn't abusing her daughter prior to his arrival?


Exactly correct. I believe this officer should be charged with violating this childs rights. He should never have touched this child to start with. It was a DHR matter. The mother should be charged with making a abusing the 911 system.


DHR never would have laid a hand on her. The Social Worker would have called the cops to the scene and the exact same thing would have happened -- there would just have been a witness to this kids behavior and another professional would have agreed with his actions. I love it when you say things like this in your hatred of LEOs because it proves how little about "law enforcement" and "rights" you really know.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Thanks to Kirk, Sassy, and any other LEO's for the job you guys do. I'm sure there is nothing in the police manual on how to deal with a 10 year old misfit. You guys have to make decisions everyday and we trust you to make the best decision you can. 99.9% of the time you get it right.


Thanks for the shout out to the LEO's, I am not an LEO however. My limited experience with Law Enforecement was through military MP for a short period once. Like you, I appreciate what they do and accept that there will be the occassional bad apple from time to time.

Kirk
quote:
DHR never would have laid a hand on her. The Social Worker would have called the cops to the scene and the exact same thing would have happened -- there would just have been a witness to this kids behavior and another professional would have agreed with his actions. I love it when you say things like this in your hatred of LEOs because it proves how little about "law enforcement" and "rights" you really know.



DHR doesn't get involved over bath taking. I guess that shows how little you know. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by trader:
Surreal! yes she had civil rights..

She has the right to remain silent,She has the right to be seen and not heard, she has the right to remain civil, she has the right to be respectfull of her parent, she has the right to take a bath when told, she has the right to obey the officer when he got there, she has the right to say Yes Mamm and Yes Sir, She has the right to keep her mouth shut, She has the right to make good grades, she has the right to go to school and behave, she has the right to have friends that are not disrespectful to others, she has the right to practice good hygene, she has the right to clean her room, she has the right to make her bed, she has the right to help her mother cook, do laundry, clean house, cut the grass and keep their property clean, etc..

Until she is able to support herself and live under own roof, she has the obligation to behave.

Yes! DHR should be called to evaluate the home, as the child may need to be removed due to weak parenting, abusive parenting, or various other valid reasons to do so. Unfortunately, the places they put the children sometimes does more harm than good. Why? Because they are put with older children who are a whole lot street smarter, already practiced more tricks to get what they want and teach them to the child. All good intentions have thorns that go with it.

It is a **** if you do, **** if you don't. You wonder which one is the best...You really do not know until the results of that experience produces an adult who either becomes a productive member of society or another sorry piece of humanity which law enforcement personnel will get to know as well as their own family members.

Unless they get to the little girl in time and get her so busy with activities such as music, sports, art, culinary skills or whatever strikes her fancy, and gives her the spark that makes her want to learn, then officers that follow the tazing officer will be handling her again. The next time, her hand may not be empty...



You did just about everything but answer my question.
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
My God...this idiot cop was already under investigation for tasering a pregnant woman.

http://www.officer.com/web/onl...%20News%20Stories%29

Well the FBI has it now. Maybe the right thing will be done.


Uhm, the article says the woman turned out to NOT be pregnant. It also says the Ozark police department requested an investigation by a couple of agencies and was turned down. The FBI may have taken over the case, but the guy in the article indicates they were actually glad they did.
quote:
Originally posted by autumn1964:
quote:
Originally posted by Surreal Justice:
My God...this idiot cop was already under investigation for tasering a pregnant woman.

http://www.officer.com/web/onl...%20News%20Stories%29

Well the FBI has it now. Maybe the right thing will be done.


Uhm, the article says the woman turned out to NOT be pregnant. It also says the Ozark police department requested an investigation by a couple of agencies and was turned down. The FBI may have taken over the case, but the guy in the article indicates they were actually glad they did.



Uhm...the mayor claims that...the FBi will get to the bottom of this. And I'm sure they are GLAD the FBI is there...thats a goodun'.
Sureal...
I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer...but that is OK, since I don't always agree with everybody's answer either.

The question here is which is more important here...
Control of an unruly child or no control of a unruly child.
You already know my opinion about tazing the 65lb child.I believe it could have been handled differently, but it is what it is.

Now! The FBI, is looking at the incident to see if it was a violation of Civil Rights, or excessive force by an officer.

I believe the investigation will reveal something, I don't know what. Since having worked with some of the guys in Birmingham,I observed they are so ham strung by paperwork and Departmental Guidelines, they have to be brilliant just to be able to drive their car to work properly.
So! Why not do just like the rest of us, be patient and see what the out come is. There will be an answer...You, I and the other forum readers may not like the investigation result, but that is not one of their departmental policies.
quote:
Originally posted by trader:
Sureal...
I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer...but that is OK, since I don't always agree with everybody's answer either.

The question here is which is more important here...
Control of an unruly child or no control of a unruly child.
You already know my opinion about tazing the 65lb child.I believe it could have been handled differently, but it is what it is.

Now! The FBI, is looking at the incident to see if it was a violation of Civil Rights, or excessive force by an officer.

I believe the investigation will reveal something, I don't know what. Since having worked with some of the guys in Birmingham,I observed they are so ham strung by paperwork and Departmental Guidelines, they have to be brilliant just to be able to drive their car to work properly.
So! Why not do just like the rest of us, be patient and see what the out come is. There will be an answer...You, I and the other forum readers may not like the investigation result, but that is not one of their departmental policies.



No Trader, you didn't answer my question. And to be quite frank, It lowers my opinion of you when you lie.

Do you feel this child's civil rights were violated?

And as a bonus question. What was this child being arrested for?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×