Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone here ever had to restrain someone? I worked at a psych hospital for years but since I was in food service I only had to help once. It's incredibly difficult. They had the option of using haldol injections. I think some kind of medical tech should go along with every police call and have the option of using ketamine or haldol. We should be asking police what they need to more safely restrain people.
I do not understand why psychiatric personnel can deal with mentally ill and criminally insane people without tasers?
Nightsticks are barbaric. Tasers? No better. Can police SPEAK? Or is it all about violence.
I know many are drawn to the job for the thrill.
They need to have 4-year degrees and a social science background. We are attracting the wrong crowd.
You do not understand because you've never been there and you've never ridden along with a cop.
I worked a psych unit for a number of years. By the time the patient gets to us he's pretty well subdued and medicated. That said, when a patient goes off and a "Mister Stat!" comes over the speakers, it was all hands on deck. Some strong and wild male patients can require four, five, six men to get him under control before he hurts someone.
Most criminals are not SPMI.
In the Atlanta case under discussion here, the cops had a calm discussion and did a field sobriety test and that was 20-30 minutes of calm. It was only when they tried to cuff him that the violence started. Started by the fleeing felon.
This guy was bigger and stronger than the cops, he tossed two of them around and shook free, wrestled a Georgia-lethal-weapon out of a cop's hands, and aimed and fired as he was running away.
Suppose they'd just said, "Ahh. OK, you win! We'll put out a warrant!"
Suppose you were alone in the car down the block that he decided to carjack? He'd already committed multiple felonies, his judgement was clouded. He was wired on adrenaline. Would rape and murder, or maybe just a nice beating, be next on his list?
You should attend your local Citizens Police Academy or similar. Go on a few ride-alongs. You seem to think that all cops do is pull people over and start beating on them. That is not reality.
Go out and get your hands dirty. Become informed.
So my opinion matters less than my husband's who is a retired police sergeant. I asked him if he thought that tasers should be banned and he said "God no!" I asked him why and he said that the only other alternative is then a gun. He prefers a non lethal approach first. He has used his a few times with good results, and no, he has never had to shoot someone. Not even that demented old man walking around his yard with a gun threatening to shoot kids who came on his lawn. He followed him in his house and grabbed the gun as he put it on the table. He was trying to call the president of the United States. No taser, no lethal weapon, no physical violence, but the man was taken into custody.
On flip side of the coin, there are people out there bent on hurting, killing, and doing whatever it takes to get away from cops. There are those high on drugs that do die from tasers. Do cops stop using them because of these people? I say no. There comes a point when you accept responsibility for your actions. We can not let criminals get away with being uncooperative with police. They are militarized because society has changed. You don't send a police officer into a gun fight with a revolver when the criminal element has Ar's and other assault rifles. Tasers? Just part of the tool box.
So my opinion matters less than my husband's who is a retired police sergeant. I asked him if he thought that tasers should be banned and he said "God no!" I asked him why and he said that the only other alternative is then a gun. He prefers a non lethal approach first. He has used his a few times with good results, and no, he has never had to shoot someone. Not even that demented old man walking around his yard with a gun threatening to shoot kids who came on his lawn. He followed him in his house and grabbed the gun as he put it on the table. He was trying to call the president of the United States. No taser, no lethal weapon, no physical violence, but the man was taken into custody.
On flip side of the coin, there are people out there bent on hurting, killing, and doing whatever it takes to get away from cops. There are those high on drugs that do die from tasers. Do cops stop using them because of these people? I say no. There comes a point when you accept responsibility for your actions. We can not let criminals get away with being uncooperative with police. They are militarized because society has changed. You don't send a police officer into a gun fight with a revolver when the criminal element has Ar's and other assault rifles. Tasers? Just part of the tool box.
IDK about that, it kind of sounds like majority of problems associated with this kind of thing...are actually becoming problems, due to actions of police!
An example of this would be, when more problems are created, just because of the existence of certain laws, rather than the problems those crimes create for society, in other words, the laws, are creating more problems in and of themselves.
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder,
Please.
Quote:
should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
A taser is safe if used properly by a trained individual. A lifelong petty criminal like Rayshard Brooks had no training and the cop had to assume Brooks was trying to use it as a deadly weapon.
I have personally been "in police custody" more than once, and I'm alive today partly because I never tried to commit "suicide by cop".
Due to the recent issue related to the Rayshad Brooks murder, should cops be barred from using tasers? The officer that shot Brooks said he feared for his life when Brooks got the officer's taser in his (Brooks') hand. Tasers were always looked at "safer" option rather than shooting an alleged suspect with a gun. It can't be both safe and unsafe if an officer fears for his and other's lives with it... It is one or the other.
Surreal timing for this post. We're having a local controversy because some deputies shot a man with a machete (they were trying to arrest him on a warrant), who refused to drop it and didn't respond to rubber bullets. So they shot him. He was Af.Am. Local Af. Ams are saying the deputies should have used a taser. Tasers are controversial, although not deadly like regular bullets, since people have died when tased. Now there's an issue of banning them, when some view them as the safe alternative to guns w/bullets.
Surreal timing for this post. We're having a local controversy because some deputies shot a man with a machete (they were trying to arrest him on a warrant), who refused to drop it and didn't respond to rubber bullets. So they shot him. He was Af.Am. Local Af. Ams are saying the deputies should have used a taser. Tasers are controversial, although not deadly like regular bullets, since people have died when tased. Now there's an issue of banning them, when some view them as the safe alternative to guns w/bullets.
Surreal is right. It seems like it's always lose-lose for cops. And I'm glad neither of my sons is a cop these days.
So my opinion matters less than my husband's who is a retired police sergeant. I asked him if he thought that tasers should be banned and he said "God no!" I asked him why and he said that the only other alternative is then a gun. He prefers a non lethal approach first. He has used his a few times with good results, and no, he has never had to shoot someone. Not even that demented old man walking around his yard with a gun threatening to shoot kids who came on his lawn. He followed him in his house and grabbed the gun as he put it on the table. He was trying to call the president of the United States. No taser, no lethal weapon, no physical violence, but the man was taken into custody.
On flip side of the coin, there are people out there bent on hurting, killing, and doing whatever it takes to get away from cops. There are those high on drugs that do die from tasers. Do cops stop using them because of these people? I say no. There comes a point when you accept responsibility for your actions. We can not let criminals get away with being uncooperative with police. They are militarized because society has changed. You don't send a police officer into a gun fight with a revolver when the criminal element has Ar's and other assault rifles. Tasers? Just part of the tool box.
All good points.
Funny you mention revolvers. Some years back I wrote a piece about the personal weapons our troops deployed in the Forever Wars should be issued or allowed to carry. I knew a number of guys who bought pistols on the local economy because the military didn't issue them to enlisted people, and they wanted something quicker and handier than a 16.
IIRC my point was the troops should be issued one of several weapons of choice. Say a 9 mm, a .40 cal, a .45, or a .357 or .44 magnum. I won't drag this on, off topic as it is, but my point was akin to the old self-defense quip about one hit with a .22 being preferable to six misses with a 9mm.
So, did the old guy ever get POTUS on the horn?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
IDK about that, it kind of sounds like majority of problems associated with this kind of thing...are actually becoming problems, due to actions of police!
An example of this would be, when more problems are created, just because of the existence of certain laws, rather than the problems those crimes create for society, in other words, the laws, are creating more problems in and of themselves.
Laws like no driving while intoxicated? I agree, that is just unfair! If BLM gets their wish, we won't have to worry about laws or cops. Just what any BLM punk happens to decide, arbitrarily, fueled by their own bias, on the spot. Like, you can't drive down this street because you're a white cracker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
Please.
A taser is safe if used properly by a trained individual. A lifelong petty criminal like Rayshard Brooks had no training and the cop had to assume Brooks was trying to use it as a deadly weapon.
I have personally been "in police custody" more than once, and I'm alive today partly because I never tried to commit "suicide by cop".
From the video it appears Brooks was aiming at the pursuing officer's face. He'd already committed numerous felonies. Having been arrested a number of times before, Brooks knew the SOP. Go to jail, post bail, go home.
Did he deserve to die? No. And yes.
Should a DWI arrest be a death sentence? No, and it typically isn't.
NOT getting stopped for a DWI can certainly be death sentences for innocents out on the road who could be hit by an impaired driver. That's why there are DWI laws.
Should assaulting an officer and firing what's legally a deadly weapon in Georgia, at a pursuing cop's face, be a death sentence? "Reasonable man" defense rears its head here. If someone points a gun at your face--taser gun or bang-bang gun--and fires, would a reasonable man fire back in self-defense? It's easy to play the pilot error game and hash this out for weeks, but the cop has a blink or two to respond.
A whole other part of this is the prosecutor's actions, which very much appear to be CYA and an attempt to take the heat off him because he himself is under investigation for some serious issues that could land him in the joint for a while.
GBI and all other investigations were skipped entirely when the persecutor quickly charged the cops with murder. He must be desperate because all this will come out in court, a guy in his position and with his experience knows this, and it will not look so good for him or his case, to put it politely.
BTW, the cop's stepmother was just fired from her job. Let justice reign.
I'm not denying the bad guy did a bad thing. I'm saying the cop screwed up when he said he was afraid for his life because a taser was pointed at him. That's all. If use of deadly force is ok, or at least--has been supported by the courts, because someone has resisted arrest and grabbed a non-lethal weapon from the cop, then the cop didn't need to say anything, did he? He didn't need to justify his use of deadly force by claiming his life was in danger, because the cop handbook, or court/legal precedent, or whatever, already had him covered.
It's interesting, how cops' first instinct is to lie.
Fear of serious physical injury or death.
PO Rolfe did not have to fear for his life. Mr. Brooks had no right to injure him either and shooting him was justified and correct to stop the assault and robbery he was undertaking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
