Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
Whether the place is public or private is irrelevant to the question of whether the use of weapons was justified. I can't agree that it was acceptable to use the taser even once. Using weapons is using weapons, it's the next level of force and isn't justified unless the suspect makes it justified by presenting a physical threat.
|
now your being unreasonable, we still don’t know the circumstances, can we at least agree that there may have been a reason for there use, I’m not saying i am 100% sure it was justified, all i am saying is that it is possible that it was justified, and until we know everything (the investigation) lets not condemn the officers.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
If they didn't see a weapon in in hand, if he didn't physically assault the officers, the position of his hands cannot possibly justify the use of weapons in my mind.
|
Yes it does, if he was asked to remove his hands from his pockets and place them out away from his body, and he did not and kept his hands hidden, i have absolutely no problem with him being tasered. if he was asked, and he complied, he should have not been tasered, we just don’t know everything that happened.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
It's their JOBS to be in potentially unsafe situations. Any traffic stop is an unsafe situation, anyone could pull a gun out of the glovebox and shoot the officer before he has a chance to ask for a license and registration! That doesn't justify Rodney King either. Now sure, Rodney King was a lot worse than this, but we have to fight the small fights too.
|
your right it is there job to be put in danger, but they should not have to place them self in more danger because someone wants to be difficult, the student would have complied with the simple order of leaving, or standing up he would not have been tasered.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
There's a big difference between physically removing someone from a place, what the UCPD should have done, and assaulting someone with violent force and weapons.
|
Again, it may have not been safe to move the suspect, or to touch him. he was resisting, and may have gotten violent, why should the cops risk there safety for some one who is not cooperating. Had he just complied and left, none of this would have happened.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by n0nsensical
And what, we don't need our 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure because it might hinder the police in finding criminals too? Our enumerated rights exist precisely because it's not a perfect world where the government always does the noble and proper thing. Although I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who really believe we don't need the 4th amendment, that's very disturbing.
|
This has nothing to do with the 4th amendment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
He was not searched, or arrested, he was asked to leave, and then he yelled and went limp, yelling is combative, and may have made the officers think he was a danger to them.