I had an arrest tonight...

I've been tased (took a probe in the armpit), and peper sprayed... I'd rather take 20 rides on the taser than taste peper spray again. I hate the BS that comes up when LEO tase someone smaller than them. IMO LEO should never have to go hands on with someone, no matter if the persons size. It not a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs (even if they can easily).
 
MagicTyler said:
I've been tased (took a probe in the armpit), and peper sprayed... I'd rather take 20 rides on the taser than taste peper spray again. I hate the BS that comes up when LEO tase someone smaller than them. IMO LEO should never have to go hands on with someone, no matter if the persons size. It not a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs (even if they can easily).
Click to expand...

I disagree. Tasers create electrical shocks that can have unplanned harmful effects to the offender. If a person has no weapon and can be reasonably subdued by the officers on scene by overwhelming force, that's the best bet. No tasers because some angry woman doesn't want to get out of her car, or some kid is being obnoxious. If someone attacks the officers, tase away, if someone has a weapon, tase away, if someone's running, tase away. Cops are trained in numerous takedown techniques that are used effectively everyday, without need for tasers. You can call tasers a "less than lethal" weapon, but they are occasionally lethal. They are a great tool for cops no doubt, but any cop who treats it like a no consequence pass to easy submission needs to be removed from the force.

It IS a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs. That's exactly what they signed on for. Maybe there will be a future police force where cops never expect to have to touch criminals when arresting them, but that's not what we have now.
 
jjesusfreak01 said:
I disagree. Tasers create electrical shocks that can have unplanned harmful effects to the offender. If a person has no weapon and can be reasonably subdued by the officers on scene by overwhelming force, that's the best bet. No tasers because some angry woman doesn't want to get out of her car, or some kid is being obnoxious. If someone attacks the officers, tase away, if someone has a weapon, tase away, if someone's running, tase away. Cops are trained in numerous takedown techniques that are used effectively everyday, without need for tasers. You can call tasers a "less than lethal" weapon, but they are occasionally lethal. They are a great tool for cops no doubt, but any cop who treats it like a no consequence pass to easy submission needs to be removed from the force.

It IS a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs. That's exactly what they signed on for. Maybe there will be a future police force where cops never expect to have to touch criminals when arresting them, but that's not what we have now.
Click to expand...


How about don't resist arrest? Seems pretty simple to me. No reason someones father or son or daughter has to go wrestle a suspect to the ground exposing their gun and risking serious injury when you can bring them down easily with a taser. Cops shouldn't have to fight fair.
 
jjesusfreak01 said:
It IS a cop's job to use their strength to get someone into cuffs. That's exactly what they signed on for. Maybe there will be a future police force where cops never expect to have to touch criminals when arresting them, but that's not what we have now.
Click to expand...



*Sigh* This is what many people not in LE don't get.

Just as it isn't our job as medics and EMTs to put themselves in danger with combative patients, it is also not a cops job.


Sorry, but this whole "fighting fair" stuff is crap. You don't fight fair, you fight to win, period. That is why cops have Tasers, Asp/ batons, OC spray and guns. That's why medics have Versed, Ativan, Valium, Haldol, Benadryl and Rorcunomium and the like.




Do what ever has to be done to get the job done as safely for the officer and / or provider as possible. If someone doesn't want to be Tased, maybe they should comply with the lawful order the first time.
 
LMAO, now that there is funny!
 
Whatever happened to the good old days of four to six cops beating the crap out of people with long wooden batons?

Have we learned nothing from the Queensland Police? :D
 
Linuss said:
If someone doesn't want to be Tased, maybe they should comply with the lawful order the first time.
Click to expand...

And when its not a lawful order, you have the right to resist the unlawful arrest. Up to, and including taking the officer's life (when the situation merits deadly force).

Runyan v Illinois
John Bad Elk v United States

(plenty more case law on it, but I see no reason to take up space on here citing each one.)

Anyway, the point is that some cops have been known to jump the gun in deploying the taser.



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HotelCo said:
And when its not a lawful order, you have the right to resist the unlawful arrest. Up to, and including taking the officer's life (when the situation merits deadly force).

Runyan v Illinois
John Bad Elk v United States

(plenty more case law on it, but I see no reason to take up space on here citing each one.)

Anyway, the point is that some cops have been known to jump the gun in deploying the taser.

.
Click to expand...

It's not murder, but according to the opinion of the court written by Mr. Justice Peckham in John Bad Elk v United States, it is manslaughter and that the plaintiff in that appeal had no right to kill the officer.

Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction when the officer had the right to make the arrest from what it does if the officer had no such right.
Click to expand...

Can you link Runyan v Illinois? The only thing I can find is Runyan v Commonwealth which is a second amendment case from 2008 in which the courts decision was that Washington D.C.'s gun laws violated the 2nd amendment and didn't cover resisting unlawful arrest.

You have people out there who abuse their powers, maybe escalate situations instead of being reasonable and talking them down, but you can't go around killing people because they want to arrest you for something they might believe is unlawful but really isn't. That is why we have courts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Frozennoodle said:
It's not murder, but according to the opinion of the court written by Mr. Justice Peckham in John Bad Elk v United States, it is manslaughter and that the plaintiff in that appeal had no right to kill the officer.
Click to expand...

The Justice goes on to say:

"Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Can you link Runyan v Illinois? The only thing I can find is Runyan v Commonwealth which is a second amendment case from 2008 in which the courts decision was that Washington D.C.'s gun laws violated the 2nd amendment and didn't cover resisting unlawful arrest.
Click to expand...

My apologies, it wasn't Runyan v Illinois. It was Runyan v Indiana, which is written as Runyan v State. If you google "Runyan v. State 57 Ind. 80" it will pop up. Sorry about that. lol

You have people out there who abuse their powers, maybe escalate situations instead of being reasonable and talking them down, but you can't go around killing people because they want to arrest you for something they might believe is unlawful but really isn't. That is why we have courts.
Click to expand...

No, you can't go around killing people because they want to arrest you. When the officer attempts to use deadly force, when they shouldn't have.. (The courts have termed deadly force as "The ultimate arrest.") You have the right to defend yourself. Obviously you can't go around killing a police officer just because he wants to arrest you. You can resist an UNLAWFUL arrest using reasonable means for the situation, which could include the use of deadly force, if it were to get that high up the force continuum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top