You apologist get ready

billydkid · 22nd September 2007, 04:17 AM

In the early afternoon of September 8, 2005, police encountered Fouad Kaady shortly after he was in an accident that left him in shock and bleeding, burned over much of his body. Rather than calling for medical help, the police commanded him to lie on the pavement, even though they could see the burned flesh hanging from his body, and even though they said he appeared to be "in a catatonic state." When he did not comply with their orders, but instead continued to sit on the ground in a daze, they tasered him repeatedly. And then, they shot him to death. But, you know, that's what you get for not cooperating. Enjoy!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8WijDe5BhQ

WildCat · 22nd September 2007, 06:40 AM

No way I defend those cops.

You aren't seriously comparing this to the idiot who got tasered at the Kerry event, are you?

JoeEllison · 22nd September 2007, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

No way I defend those cops.

You aren't seriously comparing this to the idiot who got tasered at the Kerry event, are you?

Is it unfair to place both events into a shared overall context?

WildCat · 22nd September 2007, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Is it unfair to place both events into a shared overall context?

Yes, as they have absolutely nothing in common.

Jimbo07 · 22nd September 2007, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by JoeEllison

Is it unfair to place both events into a shared overall context?

Yep. What is this "shared overall context?"

JoeEllison · 22nd September 2007, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Yep. What is this "shared overall context?"

Folks are getting trigger happy with the tasers?

Jimbo07 · 22nd September 2007, 08:48 AM

I won't say that there aren't bad cops. Also, it's more than likely that some are badly racist... but... not all cops, in every jurisdiction are evil jerks.

Also, it is incredibly rare for the police and media to be in cahoots. Normally, they are like cats and dogs, with cops complaining that the media never get it right.

fuelair · 22nd September 2007, 10:47 AM

Which apologists are you talking about. I do not believe anyone I have read posting on this site would take the cops side on this?

And I have no problem with them tasering that anal orifice at UCF, IF that was indeed what you were trying to compare with.

ponderingturtle · 22nd September 2007, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by billydkid

In the early afternoon of September 8, 2005, police encountered Fouad Kaady shortly after he was in an accident that left him in shock and bleeding, burned over much of his body. Rather than calling for medical help, the police commanded him to lie on the pavement, even though they could see the burned flesh hanging from his body, and even though they said he appeared to be "in a catatonic state." When he did not comply with their orders, but instead continued to sit on the ground in a daze, they tasered him repeatedly. And then, they shot him to death. But, you know, that's what you get for not cooperating. Enjoy!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8WijDe5BhQ

Everyone knows that proper reaction to seeing a man with bad burns who is not doing what you want, is to kick him in the balls.

This Guy · 22nd September 2007, 11:06 AM

I don't think these cops were bad, in the sense of being evil/corrupt. I don't think they intended to kill this boy when they got out of their cars.

I do think they are bad in the sense of knowing what they are doing. They (IMHO) made some very bad choices early into the encounter, and the result was tragic.

Some questions I didn't notice answers to in the videos (I watched all 5) -

How far was the boy from the wreck site, when the police arrived?

Did the cops have reason to believe the boy was from the wreck?

I have the impression that there was never a connection made between the boy and the wreck.

IMHO, based on the statements off the officers, they should have stood off at a distance, and observed the boy until medical help arrived. Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first, and advise the police on what, if any, action they should take (I'm thinking "stay outa the way, while we treat this boy").

I'm thinking EMS would evaluate the situation from a medical point of view, rather than the crime scene point of view the police appear to have been using.

There were 9 witnesses I think it said. We are shown some portions of some statements. It appears that at some point the boy said "please don't". I don't know when that was said, or what it was said in reference to. We're only shown snippets, and no context. I would like to read all 9 witness accounts, in full. Did any witness hear him say I'm going to kill you? Were the witnesses close enough to have heard him say it, if he did?

My take is that this was a very tragic event, and the police made a few major mistakes that led to this outcome.

But without knowing all the details, not just the ones we're being shown, it's hard to tell exactly what took place.

And perhaps you'll forgive me, but when I see thanks being sent out to "comrades" and "underground" in the closing credits, I consider it at least possible that we're being fed only what the producers want us to know.

bjb · 22nd September 2007, 11:13 AM

I'll set myself up as the unpopular guy.

Once again, you have to take into account what this person was doing before he got tased. If this is true:

A 27 year old man who appeared to be mentally disturbed was driving erratically out near Bluff road. He allegedly rear-ended someone and then fled. At some point, either before or after this incident, he removed his clothes. The police were called to respond, which they did in their customary manner. After tazing him a couple of times, and determining it wasn't having the desired effect, they shot him.

then perhaps the cops aren't as unjustified as some people would like us to believe.

Sorry to play hit and run but I've got to go. I have band practice in five hours.

ponderingturtle · 22nd September 2007, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by This Guy

I don't think these cops were bad, in the sense of being evil/corrupt. I don't think they intended to kill this boy when they got out of their cars.

I do think they are bad in the sense of knowing what they are doing. They (IMHO) made some very bad choices early into the encounter, and the result was tragic.

Some questions I didn't notice answers to in the videos (I watched all 5) -

How far was the boy from the wreck site, when the police arrived?

Did the cops have reason to believe the boy was from the wreck?

I have the impression that there was never a connection made between the boy and the wreck.

IMHO, based on the statements off the officers, they should have stood off at a distance, and observed the boy until medical help arrived. Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first, and advise the police on what, if any, action they should take (I'm thinking "stay outa the way, while we treat this boy").

I'm thinking EMS would evaluate the situation from a medical point of view, rather than the crime scene point of view the police appear to have been using.

This is not how EMS and the Police operate. If they had any questions of safety regarding this individual then keeping EMS away while the police deal with the situation is the proper course of action. EMS in general does not have training or equipment to deal with likely violent situations and protecting yourself is the item of first import taught in EMT class.

So if they thought he was dangerous they would be professionally required to deal with him before letting the EMT's deal with him.

This Guy · 22nd September 2007, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

This is not how EMS and the Police operate. If they had any questions of safety regarding this individual then keeping EMS away while the police deal with the situation is the proper course of action. EMS in general does not have training or equipment to deal with likely violent situations and protecting yourself is the item of first import taught in EMT class.

So if they thought he was dangerous they would be professionally required to deal with him before letting the EMT's deal with him.

If, as we're being told, the boy was sitting "Indian style" with his hands between his legs, with obvious burns, and bloody, he was not a threat to EMS standing near the police, and making a fast visual survey of the situation. I believe that properly trained EMS would have realized that the boy was in shock, and advised the police of that. That's why I stated -

"Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first"

Obviously, if the boy had changed his stance while waiting on the EMS, the police would be correct to take other appropriate action.

ponderingturtle · 22nd September 2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by This Guy

If, as we're being told, the boy was sitting "Indian style" with his hands between his legs, with obvious burns, and bloody, he was not a threat to EMS standing near the police, and making a fast visual survey of the situation. I believe that properly trained EMS would have realized that the boy was in shock, and advised the police of that. That's why I stated -

"Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first"

Obviously, if the boy had changed his stance while waiting on the EMS, the police would be correct to take other appropriate action.

That all depends. If they had thought he had say a firearm I could see their argument. The problem is that the police need to understand that someone acting strangely can be seriously medically wrong and not just an emotionally disturbed person.

The police acted wrong, but once they made certain mistakes holding EMS back might well not be a mistake. They could have told the ambulance to stop a couple of blocks away until they resolved the "standoff" and that would not be an improper action.

This Guy · 22nd September 2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

That all depends. If they had thought he had say a firearm I could see their argument. The problem is that the police need to understand that someone acting strangely can be seriously medically wrong and not just an emotionally disturbed person.

The police acted wrong, but once they made certain mistakes holding EMS back might well not be a mistake. They could have told the ambulance to stop a couple of blocks away until they resolved the "standoff" and that would not be an improper action.

Obviously, without all the details, it's hard to say exactly what should/should not have been done.

Regardless, this was a sad and tragic ending.

Cain · 22nd September 2007, 12:10 PM

tl;dwtwt

I did however hear the part where police officers were referring to the (alleged) victim as if he was Monica and Chandler's neighbor from across the street. Naked Guy this, Naked Guy that, Naked Guy, Naked Guy, Naked Guy. I think it's premature to say there is anything resembling an epidemic in tasering.

I cannot seem to find the column I am thinking of -- if it exists -- but I recall Paul Craig Roberts talking about a yearly report on police abuse produced by the Cato Institute (whose information should generally be taken in with more-than-normal-amount of suspicion, although I like Balko).

See here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01242007.html

Quote:

Occasionally Washington think tanks produce reports that are not special pleading for donors. One such report is Radley Balko's "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" (Cato Institute, 2006).

This 100-page report is extremely important and should have been published as a book. SWAT teams (Special Weapons and Tactics) were once rare and used only for very dangerous situations, often involving hostages held by armed criminals. Today SWAT teams are deployed for routine police duties. In the US today, 75-80% of SWAT deployments are for warrant service.

RandFan · 22nd September 2007, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

tl;dwtwt

I did however hear the part where police officers were referring to the (alleged) victim as if he was Monica and Chandler's neighbor from across the street. Naked Guy this, Naked Guy that, Naked Guy, Naked Guy, Naked Guy. I think it's premature to say there is anything resembling an epidemic in tasering.

I cannot seem to find the column I am thinking of -- if it exists -- but I recall Paul Craig Roberts talking about a yearly report on police abuse produced by the Cato Institute (whose information should generally be taken in with more-than-normal-amount of suspicion, although I like Balko).

See here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01242007.html

Thanks Cain,

That's a good article. I did not know that.

baron · 22nd September 2007, 12:21 PM

How is it possible to comment on this without a coherent account being offered? Ten minutes of video managed to convey nothing about the actual events or their sequence.

RandFan · 22nd September 2007, 12:42 PM

Based on the descriptions I could not begin to excuse the police or their actions. I'd like more information though. If this is as it appears to be I hope the police serve the rest of thier lives in prison.

LordoftheLeftHand · 22nd September 2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

And then, they shot him to death. But, you know, that's what you get for not cooperating. Enjoy!!

Some people will always worship "all the king's horses and all the king's men". They can do no wrong.

LLH

This Guy · 22nd September 2007, 12:55 PM

Here's some more information, for what it's worth.

http://www.sandypost.com/news/story....54635282841200

Can't speak for it's accuracy, but it sure paints a different picture.

I still think the officers acted wrong in the beginning, and that this might could have had a better ending.

baron · 22nd September 2007, 02:07 PM

Hmm, if police in the UK shot every uncooperative subject with blood on them then half of Manchester youth would be in body bags come Sunday morning.

RandFan · 22nd September 2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by This Guy

Here's some more information, for what it's worth.

http://www.sandypost.com/news/story....54635282841200

Can't speak for it's accuracy, but it sure paints a different picture.

I still think the officers acted wrong in the beginning, and that this might could have had a better ending.

I agree. Of course this telling is a bit more objective and neutral. I'm not an expert but it seems to me that if this individual was in fact just sitting on the ground and they were waiting for back up then they could have waited before doing anything.

This Guy · 22nd September 2007, 07:31 PM

One puzzling thing about the link I gave above is that it was from Nov. 2005, updated Aug 25, 2006, (Seems the shooting was Sep. 2005) and says -

"They shot to kill, assuming that the man was on drugs and that he could have possessed chemically enhanced strength. Toxicology reports, which could corroborate or disprove that theory, will not be released."

Yet the video stated the results of the test indicated no drugs or alcohol if my memory serves correctly.

I'd like to know the results of those test, and don't understand why they weren't released in time for the 2006 update on the article. I'm also wondering if the information in the video is accurate (based on results released after the 2006 update) or made up.

Beerina · 23rd September 2007, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by bjb

I'll set myself up as the unpopular guy.

Once again, you have to take into account what this person was doing before he got tased. If this is true:

A 27 year old man who appeared to be mentally disturbed was driving erratically out near Bluff road. He allegedly rear-ended someone and then fled. At some point, either before or after this incident, he removed his clothes. The police were called to respond, which they did in their customary manner. After tazing him a couple of times, and determining it wasn't having the desired effect, they shot him.

then perhaps the cops aren't as unjustified as some people would like us to believe.

Strange. The Youtube video doesn't mention this part, nor play the part of the interview where the officers say what happened in their own words.

ETA: They do, of course, several times point out how the police will lie by their very nature, and whip up any old story to justify themselves.

ponderingturtle · 25th September 2007, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by This Guy

Obviously, without all the details, it's hard to say exactly what should/should not have been done.

Regardless, this was a sad and tragic ending.

My point is that if they thought him a threat then keeping away EMS makes sense. Now why they thought he was a threat is a seperate issue.

ponderingturtle · 25th September 2007, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by This Guy

One puzzling thing about the link I gave above is that it was from Nov. 2005, updated Aug 25, 2006, (Seems the shooting was Sep. 2005) and says -

"They shot to kill, assuming that the man was on drugs and that he could have possessed chemically enhanced strength. Toxicology reports, which could corroborate or disprove that theory, will not be released."

This is a stupid statement. You don't shoot people expecting anything other than their death as a likely outcome.

22nd September 2007, 04:17 AM	#1
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	You apologist get ready In the early afternoon of September 8, 2005, police encountered Fouad Kaady shortly after he was in an accident that left him in shock and bleeding, burned over much of his body. Rather than calling for medical help, the police commanded him to lie on the pavement, even though they could see the burned flesh hanging from his body, and even though they said he appeared to be "in a catatonic state." When he did not comply with their orders, but instead continued to sit on the ground in a daze, they tasered him repeatedly. And then, they shot him to death. But, you know, that's what you get for not cooperating. Enjoy!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8WijDe5BhQ
	__________________ Wasting away in Blanchester.

22nd September 2007, 08:28 AM	#5
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,417	Originally Posted by JoeEllison Is it unfair to place both events into a shared overall context? Yep. What is this "shared overall context?"
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,417	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

22nd September 2007, 08:48 AM	#7
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,417	I won't say that there aren't bad cops. Also, it's more than likely that some are badly racist... but... not all cops, in every jurisdiction are evil jerks. Also, it is incredibly rare for the police and media to be in cahoots. Normally, they are like cats and dogs, with cops complaining that the media never get it right.
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,417	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key

22nd September 2007, 10:47 AM	#8
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932	Which apologists are you talking about. I do not believe anyone I have read posting on this site would take the cops side on this? And I have no problem with them tasering that anal orifice at UCF, IF that was indeed what you were trying to compare with.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,932

22nd September 2007, 11:01 AM	#9
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by billydkid In the early afternoon of September 8, 2005, police encountered Fouad Kaady shortly after he was in an accident that left him in shock and bleeding, burned over much of his body. Rather than calling for medical help, the police commanded him to lie on the pavement, even though they could see the burned flesh hanging from his body, and even though they said he appeared to be "in a catatonic state." When he did not comply with their orders, but instead continued to sit on the ground in a daze, they tasered him repeatedly. And then, they shot him to death. But, you know, that's what you get for not cooperating. Enjoy!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8WijDe5BhQ Everyone knows that proper reaction to seeing a man with bad burns who is not doing what you want, is to kick him in the balls.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

22nd September 2007, 06:40 AM	#2
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,019	No way I defend those cops. You aren't seriously comparing this to the idiot who got tasered at the Kerry event, are you?

22nd September 2007, 06:57 AM	#3
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by WildCat No way I defend those cops. You aren't seriously comparing this to the idiot who got tasered at the Kerry event, are you? Is it unfair to place both events into a shared overall context?

22nd September 2007, 07:08 AM	#4
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,019	Originally Posted by JoeEllison Is it unfair to place both events into a shared overall context? Yes, as they have absolutely nothing in common.

22nd September 2007, 08:29 AM	#6
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	Originally Posted by Jimbo07 Yep. What is this "shared overall context?" Folks are getting trigger happy with the tasers?

22nd September 2007, 11:06 AM	#10
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	I don't think these cops were bad, in the sense of being evil/corrupt. I don't think they intended to kill this boy when they got out of their cars. I do think they are bad in the sense of knowing what they are doing. They (IMHO) made some very bad choices early into the encounter, and the result was tragic. Some questions I didn't notice answers to in the videos (I watched all 5) - How far was the boy from the wreck site, when the police arrived? Did the cops have reason to believe the boy was from the wreck? I have the impression that there was never a connection made between the boy and the wreck. IMHO, based on the statements off the officers, they should have stood off at a distance, and observed the boy until medical help arrived. Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first, and advise the police on what, if any, action they should take (I'm thinking "stay outa the way, while we treat this boy"). I'm thinking EMS would evaluate the situation from a medical point of view, rather than the crime scene point of view the police appear to have been using. There were 9 witnesses I think it said. We are shown some portions of some statements. It appears that at some point the boy said "please don't". I don't know when that was said, or what it was said in reference to. We're only shown snippets, and no context. I would like to read all 9 witness accounts, in full. Did any witness hear him say I'm going to kill you? Were the witnesses close enough to have heard him say it, if he did? My take is that this was a very tragic event, and the police made a few major mistakes that led to this outcome. But without knowing all the details, not just the ones we're being shown, it's hard to tell exactly what took place. And perhaps you'll forgive me, but when I see thanks being sent out to "comrades" and "underground" in the closing credits, I consider it at least possible that we're being fed only what the producers want us to know.
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

22nd September 2007, 11:13 AM	#11
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079	I'll set myself up as the unpopular guy. Once again, you have to take into account what this person was doing before he got tased. If this is true: A 27 year old man who appeared to be mentally disturbed was driving erratically out near Bluff road. He allegedly rear-ended someone and then fled. At some point, either before or after this incident, he removed his clothes. The police were called to respond, which they did in their customary manner. After tazing him a couple of times, and determining it wasn't having the desired effect, they shot him. then perhaps the cops aren't as unjustified as some people would like us to believe. Sorry to play hit and run but I've got to go. I have band practice in five hours.
bjb Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,079

22nd September 2007, 11:14 AM	#12
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by This Guy I don't think these cops were bad, in the sense of being evil/corrupt. I don't think they intended to kill this boy when they got out of their cars. I do think they are bad in the sense of knowing what they are doing. They (IMHO) made some very bad choices early into the encounter, and the result was tragic. Some questions I didn't notice answers to in the videos (I watched all 5) - How far was the boy from the wreck site, when the police arrived? Did the cops have reason to believe the boy was from the wreck? I have the impression that there was never a connection made between the boy and the wreck. IMHO, based on the statements off the officers, they should have stood off at a distance, and observed the boy until medical help arrived. Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first, and advise the police on what, if any, action they should take (I'm thinking "stay outa the way, while we treat this boy"). I'm thinking EMS would evaluate the situation from a medical point of view, rather than the crime scene point of view the police appear to have been using. This is not how EMS and the Police operate. If they had any questions of safety regarding this individual then keeping EMS away while the police deal with the situation is the proper course of action. EMS in general does not have training or equipment to deal with likely violent situations and protecting yourself is the item of first import taught in EMT class. So if they thought he was dangerous they would be professionally required to deal with him before letting the EMT's deal with him.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

22nd September 2007, 11:22 AM	#13
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle This is not how EMS and the Police operate. If they had any questions of safety regarding this individual then keeping EMS away while the police deal with the situation is the proper course of action. EMS in general does not have training or equipment to deal with likely violent situations and protecting yourself is the item of first import taught in EMT class. So if they thought he was dangerous they would be professionally required to deal with him before letting the EMT's deal with him. If, as we're being told, the boy was sitting "Indian style" with his hands between his legs, with obvious burns, and bloody, he was not a threat to EMS standing near the police, and making a fast visual survey of the situation. I believe that properly trained EMS would have realized that the boy was in shock, and advised the police of that. That's why I stated - "Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first" Obviously, if the boy had changed his stance while waiting on the EMS, the police would be correct to take other appropriate action.
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

22nd September 2007, 11:31 AM	#14
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by This Guy If, as we're being told, the boy was sitting "Indian style" with his hands between his legs, with obvious burns, and bloody, he was not a threat to EMS standing near the police, and making a fast visual survey of the situation. I believe that properly trained EMS would have realized that the boy was in shock, and advised the police of that. That's why I stated - "Then they should have let the EMS evaluate the possible condition of the boy, from a distance first" Obviously, if the boy had changed his stance while waiting on the EMS, the police would be correct to take other appropriate action. That all depends. If they had thought he had say a firearm I could see their argument. The problem is that the police need to understand that someone acting strangely can be seriously medically wrong and not just an emotionally disturbed person. The police acted wrong, but once they made certain mistakes holding EMS back might well not be a mistake. They could have told the ambulance to stop a couple of blocks away until they resolved the "standoff" and that would not be an improper action.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

22nd September 2007, 11:51 AM	#15
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle That all depends. If they had thought he had say a firearm I could see their argument. The problem is that the police need to understand that someone acting strangely can be seriously medically wrong and not just an emotionally disturbed person. The police acted wrong, but once they made certain mistakes holding EMS back might well not be a mistake. They could have told the ambulance to stop a couple of blocks away until they resolved the "standoff" and that would not be an improper action. Obviously, without all the details, it's hard to say exactly what should/should not have been done. Regardless, this was a sad and tragic ending.
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

22nd September 2007, 12:10 PM	#16
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,937	tl;dwtwt I did however hear the part where police officers were referring to the (alleged) victim as if he was Monica and Chandler's neighbor from across the street. Naked Guy this, Naked Guy that, Naked Guy, Naked Guy, Naked Guy. I think it's premature to say there is anything resembling an epidemic in tasering. I cannot seem to find the column I am thinking of -- if it exists -- but I recall Paul Craig Roberts talking about a yearly report on police abuse produced by the Cato Institute (whose information should generally be taken in with more-than-normal-amount of suspicion, although I like Balko). See here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01242007.html Quote: Occasionally Washington think tanks produce reports that are not special pleading for donors. One such report is Radley Balko's "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" (Cato Institute, 2006). This 100-page report is extremely important and should have been published as a book. SWAT teams (Special Weapons and Tactics) were once rare and used only for very dangerous situations, often involving hostages held by armed criminals. Today SWAT teams are deployed for routine police duties. In the US today, 75-80% of SWAT deployments are for warrant service.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

22nd September 2007, 12:18 PM	#17
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,216	Originally Posted by Cain tl;dwtwt I did however hear the part where police officers were referring to the (alleged) victim as if he was Monica and Chandler's neighbor from across the street. Naked Guy this, Naked Guy that, Naked Guy, Naked Guy, Naked Guy. I think it's premature to say there is anything resembling an epidemic in tasering. I cannot seem to find the column I am thinking of -- if it exists -- but I recall Paul Craig Roberts talking about a yearly report on police abuse produced by the Cato Institute (whose information should generally be taken in with more-than-normal-amount of suspicion, although I like Balko). See here: http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01242007.html Thanks Cain, That's a good article. I did not know that.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd September 2007, 12:21 PM	#18
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	How is it possible to comment on this without a coherent account being offered? Ten minutes of video managed to convey nothing about the actual events or their sequence.
	__________________

22nd September 2007, 12:42 PM	#19
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,216	Based on the descriptions I could not begin to excuse the police or their actions. I'd like more information though. If this is as it appears to be I hope the police serve the rest of thier lives in prison.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd September 2007, 12:42 PM	#20
LordoftheLeftHand Dominus Sinistrae Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 1,186	Originally Posted by billydkid And then, they shot him to death. But, you know, that's what you get for not cooperating. Enjoy!! Some people will always worship "all the king's horses and all the king's men". They can do no wrong. LLH
	__________________ What though the field be lost? All is not lost—the unconquerable will, And study of revenge, immortal hate, And courage never to submit or yield - Milton, Paradise Lost

22nd September 2007, 12:55 PM	#21
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Here's some more information, for what it's worth. http://www.sandypost.com/news/story....54635282841200 Can't speak for it's accuracy, but it sure paints a different picture. I still think the officers acted wrong in the beginning, and that this might could have had a better ending.
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

22nd September 2007, 02:07 PM	#22
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Hmm, if police in the UK shot every uncooperative subject with blood on them then half of Manchester youth would be in body bags come Sunday morning.
	__________________

22nd September 2007, 04:34 PM	#23
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,216	Originally Posted by This Guy Here's some more information, for what it's worth. http://www.sandypost.com/news/story....54635282841200 Can't speak for it's accuracy, but it sure paints a different picture. I still think the officers acted wrong in the beginning, and that this might could have had a better ending. I agree. Of course this telling is a bit more objective and neutral. I'm not an expert but it seems to me that if this individual was in fact just sitting on the ground and they were waiting for back up then they could have waited before doing anything.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd September 2007, 07:31 PM	#24
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	One puzzling thing about the link I gave above is that it was from Nov. 2005, updated Aug 25, 2006, (Seems the shooting was Sep. 2005) and says - "They shot to kill, assuming that the man was on drugs and that he could have possessed chemically enhanced strength. Toxicology reports, which could corroborate or disprove that theory, will not be released." Yet the video stated the results of the test indicated no drugs or alcohol if my memory serves correctly. I'd like to know the results of those test, and don't understand why they weren't released in time for the 2006 update on the article. I'm also wondering if the information in the video is accurate (based on results released after the 2006 update) or made up.
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

23rd September 2007, 07:05 AM	#25
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by bjb I'll set myself up as the unpopular guy. Once again, you have to take into account what this person was doing before he got tased. If this is true: A 27 year old man who appeared to be mentally disturbed was driving erratically out near Bluff road. He allegedly rear-ended someone and then fled. At some point, either before or after this incident, he removed his clothes. The police were called to respond, which they did in their customary manner. After tazing him a couple of times, and determining it wasn't having the desired effect, they shot him. then perhaps the cops aren't as unjustified as some people would like us to believe. Strange. The Youtube video doesn't mention this part, nor play the part of the interview where the officers say what happened in their own words. ETA: They do, of course, several times point out how the police will lie by their very nature, and whip up any old story to justify themselves.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 23rd September 2007 at 07:45 AM.

25th September 2007, 07:27 PM	#26
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by This Guy Obviously, without all the details, it's hard to say exactly what should/should not have been done. Regardless, this was a sad and tragic ending. My point is that if they thought him a threat then keeping away EMS makes sense. Now why they thought he was a threat is a seperate issue.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

25th September 2007, 07:30 PM	#27
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by This Guy One puzzling thing about the link I gave above is that it was from Nov. 2005, updated Aug 25, 2006, (Seems the shooting was Sep. 2005) and says - "They shot to kill, assuming that the man was on drugs and that he could have possessed chemically enhanced strength. Toxicology reports, which could corroborate or disprove that theory, will not be released." This is a stupid statement. You don't shoot people expecting anything other than their death as a likely outcome.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin