[hessogood]

I'm yet to hear how or when this guy broke the law.

He said "I'm trying to take my hands out". That would lead most people to asume he was 'trying to take his hands out' and might be inhibbited by the effects of three taser shots. The effects of each that can last serveral minutes. And I haven't been able to read anywhere that the pepper spray or the knife were in his sweatshirt pocket. I'm pretty sure if they were that would be clearly pointed out.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by highsider

I'm not saying that the police acted properly, or that they didn't; I'm just saying that the story originally posted sounds like either the most heinous act completed by a police officer in recent history OR a huge, steaming load of shit. Knowing LEOs as I do, I am leaning towards the latter, but anything is possible.


That letter Ben posted gives little or no info; I'll be interested in what they have to say after the investigation is complete.

dont worry chris, with jay being an eye witness and his expert knowledge of the law and judicial systems(and everything else) he knows what he is talking about....cops are bad, didnt you read the first article?

[highsider]

Originally Posted by hessogood

I'm yet to hear how or when this guy broke the law.

He said "I'm trying to take my hands out". That would lead most people to asume he was 'trying to take his hands out' and might be inhibbited by the effects of three taser shots. The effects of each that can last serveral minutes. And I haven't been able to read anywhere that the pepper spray or the knife were in his sweatshirt pocket. I'm pretty sure if they were that would be clearly pointed out.

I have a feeling the "I'm trying to take my hands out" was something added in by a bystander, like much of the story. As for the knife and pepper spray, it says he had them on his person but was not "brandishing" them, which typically means displaying; thus, they'd have to be in his pockets or in his pants, etc.

This story is just way too far out there. A team of cops are not going to walk up and taser and shoot a guy with no provocation in front of a bunch of bystanders for no good reason, no matter how crooked they may (or may not) be. Think of it this way: whats in it for them? WHY would a cop walk up on someone and shoot them for no apparent reason? What would be the benefit?

It just doesn't add up.

[bigred875]

quote of the thread
"there is no justification for tasering him multiple times and then shooting him 3 times in the chest at close range "

[hessogood]

Do you remember the Student in california that was tasered multiple times? That happened, what was in it for them?

[hessogood]

Bigred, welcome to ignore.

[highsider]

Originally Posted by hessogood

Do you remember the Student in california that was tasered multiple times? That happened, what was in it for them?

Those cops were a bunch of scumbags; they were showing off for each other and others present, trying to make an example, etc.

These cops may also be a bunch of (worse) scumbags.

All I am saying is that its not immediately apparent, to me at least, that the cops did aything wrong. The story posted by zombie is the view of a friend of the person killed, and smacks of being spun away from the truth of the matter. Which is exacerbated by the fact that the guy got tased and kept trying to get up without taking his hands out of his pocket, a sure sign of someone trying to hide a weapon. If the guy had, at the very least, just layed where he was, he'd likely be alive today.

[rjh200]

Anybody hit with a Tazer like that once could easily be detained. Never mind 3 times. The point is that with 12 cops present with tazers, unless he is firing a gun at them there is absolutly no reason for him to get shot. As far as I am concerned I don't care if he is a gang member, a marine, the pope or satan himself. Police have a process and it was not followed in this case. Even the comments mentioned in the police statements don't justify shooting somebody 3 times at point blank range.

[TheIglu]

I'd like to read about the story somewhere else. The posted one was an opinion piece.

[highsider]

Originally Posted by rjh200

Anybody hit with a Tazer like that once could easily be detained. Never mind 3 times. The point is that with 12 cops present with tazers, unless he is firing a gun at them there is absolutly no reason for him to get shot. As far as I am concerned I don't care if he is a gang member, a marine, the pope or satan himself. Police have a process and it was not followed in this case. Even the comments mentioned in the police statements don't justify shooting somebody 3 times at point blank range.

Not true.

I have at least three people on my caseload here at work who were tased multiple times and continued to fight.

And if they wont take their hands out of their pocket, and are continuing to fight, you have no way of knowing if they will pull a gun out of said pocket and start causing death of officers or bystanders.

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by rjh200

Anybody hit with a Tazer like that once could easily be detained. Never mind 3 times. The point is that with 12 cops present with tazers, unless he is firing a gun at them there is absolutly no reason for him to get shot. As far as I am concerned I don't care if he is a gang member, a marine, the pope or satan himself. Police have a process and it was not followed in this case. Even the comments mentioned in the police statements don't justify shooting somebody 3 times at point blank range.

people have different tolerances for everything....some people are not effected that bad by them and there is a chance his sweatshirt prevented the probe to go into him....

"unless he is firing a gun at them there is absolutly no reason for him to get shot. "

"Police have a process and it was not followed in this case. Even the comments mentioned in the police statements don't justify shooting somebody 3 times at point blank range."

What exactly do you know what the reason is for firing at a guy? Seems to me they did what they were supposed to....

-guy resisted
-guy got tazed
-guy still resisted
-guy got tazed
-guy still resisted
-guy got tazed
-guy still resisted
-guy got shot

The moral of the story is that if you do not do what the cops say you will get dead...

btw - cops never shoot to injure, maim or stop a suspect....they shoot to kill..everytime. If you hear of someone getting hit in the leg...they got lucky

[benVFR]

We had a video posted here on NESR within the last 6 months of a cop tasing a drunk driver 4-5x before the guy finally stayed down.

And I could have sworn I've seen numerous videos on Discovery channel, etc.. of police and military recruits getting hit and some of them don't even go down.

But whatever.. this will go to trial and the judge & jury will decide.

[TheIglu]

I very strongly doubt the main intent whenever shooting is to kill. It's just an unfortunate by-product of the necessary means to get the person to stop in many instances.

[hessogood]

Originally Posted by highsider

Not true.

I have at least three people on my caseload here at work who were tased multiple times and continued to fight.

And if they wont take their hands out of their pocket, and are continuing to fight, you have no way of knowing if they will pull a gun out of said pocket and start causing death of officers or bystanders.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ELAINE HALE, Individually and as

This is the lawsuit that cites procedures that were not followed. It includes things like expected effects of a taser, how the next step is pepper spray that was not used by any officer. Among other things. The proper procedure for the sensory overload tactic. and so on.

So the speculation is that this guy threw up and convulsed in an attempt to pose an immenent threat?

[highsider]

Originally Posted by TheIglu

I very strongly doubt the main intent whenever shooting is to kill. It's just an unfortunate by-product of the necessary means to get the person to stop in many instances.

Make no mistake; if a police officer pulls his gun out, he intends to use "lethal force". He is not going to try to shoot a leg or a shoulder, he is aiming for a chest or head.

[rjh200]

Originally Posted by bigred875

people have different tolerances for everything....some people are not effected that bad by them and there is a chance his sweatshirt prevented the probe to go into him....

If he was hit well enough to convulse and throw up then the probes got to him.

Originally Posted by bigred875

What exactly do you know what the reason is for firing at a guy? Seems to me they did what they were supposed to....

-guy resisted
-guy got tazed
-guy still resisted
-guy got tazed
-guy still resisted
-guy got tazed
-guy still resisted
-guy got shot

The moral of the story is that if you do not do what the cops say you will get dead...

btw - cops never shoot to injure, maim or stop a suspect....they shoot to kill..everytime. If you hear of someone getting hit in the leg...they got lucky

Lets see, he had no gun on him and he was on the ground puking! When you get hit with a tazer like that it disorients you. Most of the movement that occurs during that time is reaction and is not controlled in most cases.

Should have never gotten that far! Guy resists arrest he gets tazed, keeps resisting arrest he gets hit again and at that point 1 or 2 officers can easily detain him.

[hessogood]

Originally Posted by TheIglu

I very strongly doubt the main intent whenever shooting is to kill. It's just an unfortunate by-product of the necessary means to get the person to stop in many instances.

Procedure when firing a gun at an iminent threat to you life and well being is three rounds in the chest and re-asses the situation. At least that's what i've read pertaining to delaware. I'd call three rounds in the chest a death sentence.

[highsider]

Originally Posted by hessogood

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ELAINE HALE, Individually and as

This is the lawsuit that cites procedures that were not followed. It includes things like expected effects of a taser, how the next step is pepper spray that was not used by any officer. Among other things. The proper procedure for the sensory overload tactic. and so on.

So the speculation is that this guy threw up and convulsed in an attempt to pose an immenent threat?

That is the lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs; as you might imagine, it is designed to paint a certain picture. The police officers will have some rebuttal, which may or may not paint a different one.

The speculation is that he wouldn't take his hands out of his pocket, showing that he did not have a deadly weapon, and got shot for his trouble.

[rjh200]

Originally Posted by benVFR

We had a video posted here on NESR within the last 6 months of a cop tasing a drunk driver 4-5x before the guy finally stayed down.

And I could have sworn I've seen numerous videos on Discovery channel, etc.. of police and military recruits getting hit and some of them don't even go down.

But whatever.. this will go to trial and the judge & jury will decide.

I agree that it has different affects on different people and depends on where and how clean the hit is. I have first hand knowledge of how these work. My point is that if he was on the ground and throwing up he was not a threat. As soon as he was hit the second time he should have been rushed to the ground and detained.

[hessogood]

The stautes cited are the only facts that i'm reffereing to there. I'm assuming she isn't going to lie to a court about the courts laws and documented procedures that the court knows about.

That's some solid stuff that i wanted to bring in, as most of our talk is speculation, opinion and such. Failing to follow strict documented procedure is a different story.

[benVFR]

The wife wasn't actually at the scene.

It's the wife and/or children of the other Pagan member who those claims have to be based on.

Then there is the guy across the street who will probably testify for the Pagans, and on the other side you have the police.

I wonder where the story came from that he had one hand out of his pocket.

Being able to say "Not in front of the children" is not consistent with being incapacitated by the tasers either.

[hessogood]

So you're saying he was an immenent threat and the taser was having no effect on him?

[bigred875]

Originally Posted by rjh200

If he was hit well enough to convulse and throw up then the probes got to him.



Lets see, he had no gun on him and he was on the ground puking! When you get hit with a tazer like that it disorients you. Most of the movement that occurs during that time is reaction and is not controlled in most cases.

Should have never gotten that far! Guy resists arrest he gets tazed, keeps resisting arrest he gets hit again and at that point 1 or 2 officers can easily detain him.

and if 1-2 officers cant and one gets stabbed and killed?

the whole point is overkill.....you must do what the cops say...whether they are right or wrong or you there is a good chance you will die resisting if they think you have a weapon...

if this case turns out that the cops are wrong and killed him for no reason that is tragic but it doesnt chagne the fact that he should not have resisted... why did he have to get tazed once? A marine of all people should respect the authority of the cops...even if the cops are scumbags, you rescept the badge not the person....

like with street riding, doesnt matter who is at fault if a cager runs you over and you die...you need to act accordingly to prevent yourself from being hit...

nothing good comes from "getting into it" with cops... You listen, do what they say then after it's all said and done file complaints, accuse them of a crime.....

[TheIglu]

Originally Posted by hessogood

Procedure when firing a gun at an iminent threat to you life and well being is three rounds in the chest and re-asses the situation. At least that's what i've read pertaining to delaware. I'd call three rounds in the chest a death sentence.

That may be true, but the last thing on any officers mind is wanting to kill someone. I'm willing to bet that everytime they are hoping the guy gets incapacitated by these shots but not dead. No officers want to kill someone if they don't have to.

[benVFR]

No just saying I don't think everything in the lawsuit adds up. (I read the whole thing at lunch)

And I think there are going to be lots of conflicts in the story when the witnesses all give their testimonies.

The claims that the taser worked are COMPLETELY based on the plaintiff and the guy across the street. What happens if all the police testify the first 2 taser shots missed?

What if they testify he was not on the front steps as the other news story said?

What if more witnesses come forward? (Sounds like this is the classic bad neighborhood case, no one wants to come forward for fear of retaliation)