WTF? Taser edition.

[peeker643]

The argument about tasing a 10-year had some legitimate merit on both sides till this was written:

"IMO the police department should be reprimanded for responding to such a call to begin with. Disobedience does not fall under domestic violence, not even close"

Now it is abundantly clear, the above author has not a friggin' clue...........

Explain to me when the LEO's or any other person's life was in danger
(b/c a child was being disobedient about going to bed), then and only then will I acknowledge a 10 yr old being tasered as a legit FUCK up, err excuse.

Context retards, context.

Retards aay?

Nice.

His years as a police officer who has raised and dealt with children of his own give FUDU license to throw around those kind of words. The kind he'll MF you for using tomorrow.

Typically I'd say it would be a real PoS that would throw that word out there. Even in NHB. So that was kind of surprising that he went there.

[aoxo1]

And take care to note no one has offered up what I asked for earlier.

No one. Because they are full of shit. They have as much experience of walking into this type of situation as they do with kids. And they won't break it down in detail.

They never do.

I don't know, I imagine LEOs were able to handle this kind of situation before the invention of the taser. And that 99.9% of them are able to handle it effectively without shooting 50,000 volts through someone.

[peeker643]

And take care to note no one has offered up what I asked for earlier.

No one. Because they are full of shit. They have as much experience of walking into this type of situation as they do with kids. And they won't break it down in detail.

They never do.

I don't know, I imagine LEOs were able to handle this kind of situation before the invention of the taser. And that 99.9% of them are able to handle it effectively without shooting 50,000 volts through someone.

Look above bro. They used clubs, they used wrestling moves, they bear-hugged and used batons. There was contact, injuries, allegations of improper contact, etc.

Of course, there weren't half-assed internet reporters on every corner and not every single step or decision was questioned by people on a sports board either. Times have changed.

Perhaps nerve manipulation or a sleeper hold would have been the proper way to go?

So yeah, they did handle it aoxo. All the time. Probably a lot more physically and with a lot less oversite.

Still, I haven't seen what I'm looking for man.

Might it be that a redacted, partial narrative of an inadmissible police report and an internet article isn't enough to go off?
Why won't people give me my step-by-step?

Is there the slightest chance that it's because they don't WTF they would do or what the protocol would be?


Let's all agree that tasering a 10 yr old is the last resort, okay? I'm with ya. 100%

Tell me what the first resort was.
Tell me what's next. Tell me if he followed the protocol and went through the list before getting to the last resort. Tell me what her chances were of hurting herself in her state. What were the chances of her hurting or mother or vice versa.

What long term damage and injuries did the girl sustain as a result of the taser?

What was the likelihood based on what you all saw at the scene of the situation escalating?
What was the likelihood if the situation escalated that injuries worse than the taser would be sustained.

Tell me.

Or someone can just say "I have no fucking idea dude because I'm not a cop and I was not there. And yes, there's a chance based on what may have gone down that using the taser was actually the right call based on the situation and based on human interpretation of that situation."


I will say thanks for not throwing a 'retarded' insult though aoxo1. I didn't expect you would, but I've been surprised already today.

Peace.

[aoxo1]

Peeker, you know you are asking an unanswerable question, at least as far as your requirements for an answer, by anyone who has not gone through the extensive training LEOs do. Just because I don't know exactly how to answer that question doesn't mean that I am unaware that it is probably almost certainly a bad idea to tase a young girl who has committed no crime and is not a real threat to do much more than kick or bite.

But ok: "I have no fucking idea dude because I'm not a cop and I was not there. And yes, there's a chance based on what may have gone down that using the taser was actually the right call based on the situation and based on human interpretation of that situation."

"What long term damage and injuries did the girl sustain as a result of the taser?"
I would say that this girl will never, ever trust the police again. And neither will her family, or other people close to her. I would answer that there have been hundreds of people who have been killed by tasers, with many more suffering sustained injuries either directly or indirectly (falling and hitting head or something). Nevermind the psychological damage.

By your logic, we cannot question the actions of any police officer in nearly any situation, obviously barring something like when a man was murdered on the BART (regional trains out here) by a BART police officer. Of course, who knows what the story would have been had there not been a video of it?

[peeker643]

Peeker, you know you are asking an unanswerable question, at least as far as your requirements for an answer, by anyone who has not gone through the extensive training LEOs do. Just because I don't know exactly how to answer that question doesn't mean that I am unaware that it is probably almost certainly a bad idea to tase a young girl who has committed no crime and is not a real threat to do much more than kick or bite.

But ok: "I have no fucking idea dude because I'm not a cop and I was not there. And yes, there's a chance based on what may have gone down that using the taser was actually the right call based on the situation and based on human interpretation of that situation."

"What long term damage and injuries did the girl sustain as a result of the taser?"
I would say that this girl will never, ever trust the police again. And neither will her family, or other people close to her. I would answer that there have been hundreds of people who have been killed by tasers, with many more suffering sustained injuries either directly or indirectly (falling and hitting head or something). Nevermind the psychological damage.

By your logic, we cannot question the actions of any police officer in nearly any situation, obviously barring something like when a man was murdered on the BART (regional trains out here) by a BART police officer. Of course, who knows what the story would have been had there not been a video of it?

No.

No.

Not at all. You can question it. You should. You should also make sure you have ALL the information before you provide your answers IMO.

Cop Tasers 10 Yr Old Girl is worth a look.

But before you judge the cop you need way more than what you guys got. Way more.

People have died in their sleep too aoxo. What injuries did this girl specifically sustain in the incident?

And tell me what evidence you have that she trusted authority prior to the cop walking in the door. She didn't listen then before he ended the situation.

[aoxo1]

No.

No.

Not at all. You can question it. You should. You should also make sure you have ALL the information before you provide your answers IMO.

Cop Tasers 10 Yr Old Girl is worth a look.

But before you judge the cop you need way more than what you guys got. Way more.

People have died in their sleep too aoxo. What injuries did this girl specifically sustain in the incident?

Irrelevant. Tasers have the potential to cause injuries/death. Because on didn't in a specific case does not mean that it was OK to use it. If they cause severe injury 10% of the time, for example, that doesn't mean that they are fine to use 90% of the time. I would also say that the girl suffered an excruciating amount of pain. In the medium term, nearly any force is not going to cause lasting injuries.

And tell me what evidence you have that she trusted authority prior to the cop walking in the door. She didn't listen then before he ended the situation.

Seems she was hysterical, like a 10 year old might be. Again, I don't know.

I really don't think we are particularly far apart on this.

I would say the main difference, and actually most people feel as you do, is that I think tasers are treated as not that big of a deal by the general public. Even if they weren't potentially deadly weapons, inflicting a large amount of pain on a civilian should be something done only when absolutely necessary. Which, again, is hard for me to believe could ever be the case for a 10 year old barring her having some kind of weapon. And again, for 99% of officers that is the case. But that is hardly worth talking about, because there is no argument there.

[FUDU]

FUDU:

Here's a context for you (and I won't call you a retard, because that would be an insult to mentally handicapped people):

You have no clue whatsoever. If you think an out of control 10-year is incapable of harming themselves or others, I suggest you sack up the testicular fortitude and seek a job doing public service, preferably in the area of juvenile counseling, probation, teaching LD/ADD/Bi-polar children, family intervention, Big Brother program, "Children in Crisis" programs or a hundred others. Then review your past postings............

You notice I never mentioned you seeking a job in law enforcement................guess why.

You kidding me? FUDU knows all (except maybe the 'spade is a spade' proper usage).

Here's what he said:

IMO the police department should be reprimanded for responding to such a call to begin with. Disobedience does not fall under domestic violence, not even close.

You'd think that means they shouldn't respond to domestic disturbances, right. Cuz whatever goes wrong there?

But he turned it into:

Explain to me when the LEO's or any other person's life was in danger
(b/c a child was being disobedient about going to bed), then and only then will I acknowledge a 10 yr old being tasered as a legit FUCK up, err excuse.

Context retards, context.

It's called the Tourettes style of arguing where you blurt out anything and hope it makes sense. He's the master.

You cannot win. He knows more than you about both raising 10 yr olds, how to handle kids and police work. Believe me. Doesn't matter he never did any of it.

And take care to note no one has offered up what I asked for earlier.

No one. Because they are full of shit. They have as much experience of walking into this type of situation as they do with kids. And they won't break it down in detail.

They never do.

That's weak Peeker and you know it.

It's a matter of simple common sense.

It is a ten year old kid, nothing more. LE should have NEVER been called in the first place NEVER, it is a private domestic issue, nothing more. The police are not at fault for the mom calling but it is a joke we have come to the point in society in which we feel the police are needed to show up when little Susie wants to stay up late. A bigger joke that people would feel the LEO would NEED to resort to a taser to resolve the situation.

...and yeah it is retarded.

[FUDU]

The argument about tasing a 10-year had some legitimate merit on both sides till this was written:

"IMO the police department should be reprimanded for responding to such a call to begin with. Disobedience does not fall under domestic violence, not even close"

Now it is abundantly clear, the above author has not a friggin' clue...........

Explain to me when the LEO's or any other person's life was in danger
(b/c a child was being disobedient about going to bed), then and only then will I acknowledge a 10 yr old being tasered as a legit FUCK up, err excuse.

Context retards, context.

Retards aay?

Nice.

His years as a police officer who has raised and dealt with children of his own give FUDU license to throw around those kind of words. The kind he'll MF you for using tomorrow.

Typically I'd say it would be a real PoS that would throw that word out there. Even in NHB. So that was kind of surprising that he went there.

Again weak Peeker. No offense was intended by using those words and everybody that frequents this forum knows it. Appreciate the nice stabs in the back though.

[FUDU]

No.

No.

Not at all. You can question it. You should. You should also make sure you have ALL the information before you provide your answers IMO.

Cop Tasers 10 Yr Old Girl is worth a look.

But before you judge the cop you need way more than what you guys got. Way more.

People have died in their sleep too aoxo. What injuries did this girl specifically sustain in the incident?

Irrelevant. Tasers have the potential to cause injuries/death. Because on didn't in a specific case does not mean that it was OK to use it. If they cause severe injury 10% of the time, for example, that doesn't mean that they are fine to use 90% of the time. I would also say that the girl suffered an excruciating amount of pain. In the medium term, nearly any force is not going to cause lasting injuries.

And tell me what evidence you have that she trusted authority prior to the cop walking in the door. She didn't listen then before he ended the situation.

Seems she was hysterical, like a 10 year old might be. Again, I don't know.

I really don't think we are particularly far apart on this.

I would say the main difference, and actually most people feel as you do, is that I think tasers are treated as not that big of a deal by the general public. Even if they weren't potentially deadly weapons, inflicting a large amount of pain on a civilian should be something done only when absolutely necessary. Which, again, is hard for me to believe could ever be the case for a 10 year old barring her having some kind of weapon. And again, for 99% of officers that is the case. But that is hardly worth talking about, because there is no argument there.

aoxo brings up a very good point about the damage to this young girl's future trust of not only LE but authority in general. Now it doesn't mean that LE needs to worry about a victim/culprits future views of them while on the job 99.% of the time, but we are talking about a situation that LE is not involved with 99.9999999% of the time. Which again is why I ask for context, it is so important in looking at this stuff after the fact and before hand.

Obviously this girl has some kind of issues with authority already b/c of the nature of this particular story, however just like "none of us were there" and we don't "know what happened" we also do not know if this was a very isolated incident with this girl (and her mom) or not. It just might have a been a 10 year old testing how far mom would go, kids do that, all the time. Who knows.

Plus like aoxo said just b/c the taser didn't do damage on the surface doesn't justify its use, in plenty of these situations. If that logic was a baseline drunk driving would not be illegal or frowned upon by society.

Hey you guys want the cops to get their credit when they get it right, fine, they deserve it and don't get the recognition all that often. That isn't the fault of the people they protect it is the fault of the people that report news. Cops getting it right isn't news, why, b/c they do get it right way more often than they don't. When they get it wrong, like this time (or "it" is controversial) that is news, that is why you see this stuff pop up on boards for discussion.

[peeker643]

The argument about tasing a 10-year had some legitimate merit on both sides till this was written:

"IMO the police department should be reprimanded for responding to such a call to begin with. Disobedience does not fall under domestic violence, not even close"

Now it is abundantly clear, the above author has not a friggin' clue...........

Explain to me when the LEO's or any other person's life was in danger
(b/c a child was being disobedient about going to bed), then and only then will I acknowledge a 10 yr old being tasered as a legit FUCK up, err excuse.

Context retards, context.

Retards aay?

Nice.

His years as a police officer who has raised and dealt with children of his own give FUDU license to throw around those kind of words. The kind he'll MF you for using tomorrow.

Typically I'd say it would be a real PoS that would throw that word out there. Even in NHB. So that was kind of surprising that he went there.

Again weak Peeker. No offense was intended by using those words and everybody that frequents this forum knows it. Appreciate the nice stabs in the back though.

Right. I'm the one with the weak take when you can't find a synonym for 'retarded' to describe a differing opinion. If throwing that word around ain't shitty I don't what is. That's weak FUDU. Martyr yourself or not.

And tell me again what kind of respect the girl had for adults and police that brought us to the point where the officer was called?

You figure the officer walked in and tased her or did he try and resolve the issue another way first?

You're ready to condemn based on a blurb. I'd prefer to know what happened.

[peeker643]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575 ... latestnews

"We didn't use the Taser to punish the child — just to bring the child under control so she wouldn't hurt herself or somebody else," Noggle said.

If the officer tried to forcefully put the girl in handcuffs, he could have accidentally broken her arm or leg, Noggle said.

He said a touch of the stun gun — "less than a second" — stopped the girl from being unruly, and she was handcuffed, he said.

"She got up immediately and they put her in the patrol car," McDaniel said.

Noggle said the girl will face disorderly conduct charges as a juvenile in the incident.

The girl's father, Anthony Medlock, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that his daughter has emotional problems, but that she didn't have a weapon and shouldn't have been Tasered.

In some cases, a Taser "presents the safer response to resistance compared with the alternatives such as fists, kicks, baton strikes, bean bag guns, chemical agents, or canine response," Tuttle said in a statement.

But McDaniel said he wants Arkansas State Police — and if they decline, the FBI — to investigate the incident. The state police declined his request Tuesday.

"People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation," McDaniel said.

Novel approach. Find out all that happened and then make a call.

[Orenthal]

The argument about tasing a 10-year had some legitimate merit on both sides till this was written:

"IMO the police department should be reprimanded for responding to such a call to begin with. Disobedience does not fall under domestic violence, not even close"

Now it is abundantly clear, the above author has not a friggin' clue...........

Explain to me when the LEO's or any other person's life was in danger
(b/c a child was being disobedient about going to bed), then and only then will I acknowledge a 10 yr old being tasered as a legit FUCK up, err excuse.

Context retards, context.

Is that some kind of documented law or procedure??? Opinion piece, retard...

[Orenthal]

It's called the Tourettes style of arguing where you blurt out anything and hope it makes sense. He's the master.

You cannot win. He knows more than you about both raising 10 yr olds, how to handle kids and police work. Believe me. Doesn't matter he never did any of it.

And take care to note no one has offered up what I asked for earlier.

No one. Because they are full of shit. They have as much experience of walking into this type of situation as they do with kids. And they won't break it down in detail.

They never do.

Best yet when finally having nuthing to offer in the way of supporting a point, will tell you he is too busy nailing chicks to care anymore...

[FUDU]

The argument about tasing a 10-year had some legitimate merit on both sides till this was written:

"IMO the police department should be reprimanded for responding to such a call to begin with. Disobedience does not fall under domestic violence, not even close"

Now it is abundantly clear, the above author has not a friggin' clue...........

Explain to me when the LEO's or any other person's life was in danger
(b/c a child was being disobedient about going to bed), then and only then will I acknowledge a 10 yr old being tasered as a legit FUCK up, err excuse.

Context retards, context.

Retards aay?

Nice.

His years as a police officer who has raised and dealt with children of his own give FUDU license to throw around those kind of words. The kind he'll MF you for using tomorrow.

Typically I'd say it would be a real PoS that would throw that word out there. Even in NHB. So that was kind of surprising that he went there.

Again weak Peeker. No offense was intended by using those words and everybody that frequents this forum knows it. Appreciate the nice stabs in the back though.

Right. I'm the one with the weak take when you can't find a synonym for 'retarded' to describe a differing opinion. If throwing that word around ain't shitty I don't what is. That's weak FUDU. Martyr yourself or not.

And tell me again what kind of respect the girl had for adults and police that brought us to the point where the officer was called?

You figure the officer walked in and tased her or did he try and resolve the issue another way first?

You're ready to condemn based on a blurb. I'd prefer to know what happened.

Of course knowing exactly what happened is important, and I'm not condemning based on a blurb I'm condemning based on the fact a grown police man used a taser on 10 year old girl. Or is that part a "disputable" fact?

But keep focusing on the that retard comment Peeker maybe that will distract attention away from the fact you cannot understand the common sense aspect and the 10 yr old girl context of the situation.

[Orenthal]

I think it is perfectly understood. Constant second guessing of police tactics has led to the widespread use of the non-lethal taser. I'm just waiting for the next way police will be handcuffed once the taser is taken away... Just say you can't do anything to restrain an out of control 10 year old other then telling them to stand in the corner, or givin' them a time out...

Like in ET, just make'em carry walkie talkie's...

[dem425]

"Of course knowing exactly what happened is important, and I'm not condemning based on a blurb I'm condemning based on the fact a grown police man used a taser on 10 year old girl. Or is that part a "disputable" fact?

But keep focusing on the that retard comment Peeker maybe that will distract attention away from the fact you cannot understand the common sense aspect and the 10 yr old girl context of the situation."



You accusing someone else of not using common sense just solidifies your apparent status as a 20/30-something with entitlement issues and a hard-on for authority..............Enjoy your naivete, eventually you will get it.......

[aoxo1]

"We didn't use the Taser to punish the child — just to bring the child under control so she wouldn't hurt herself or somebody else," Noggle said.

If the officer tried to forcefully put the girl in handcuffs, he could have accidentally broken her arm or leg, Noggle said.

He said a touch of the stun gun — "less than a second" — stopped the girl from being unruly, and she was handcuffed, he said.

In some cases, a Taser "presents the safer response to resistance compared with the alternatives such as fists, kicks, baton strikes, bean bag guns, chemical agents, or canine response," Tuttle said in a statement.

I think we need to start handing out tasers to all new parents. After all, it is the only way to restrain an unruly child without breaking arms, using tear gas, or calling in the canines apparently.

I'll admit, I'm not a parent, so maybe that really is how kids are handled these days.

[FUDU]

I think it is perfectly understood. Constant second guessing of police tactics has led to the widespread use of the non-lethal taser. I'm just waiting for the next way police will be handcuffed once the taser is taken away... Just say you can't do anything to restrain an out of control 10 year old other then telling them to stand in the corner, or givin' them a time out...

Like in ET, just make'em carry walkie talkie's...

Every single situation is unique and should be viewed as such. It makes no sense and is wrong to make blanketing statements about personal responsibility in regards to don't do anything wrong and you won't get hit with a taser.

I am actually strongly against the notion that we NEED to come up with less lethal alternatives for LE b/c there are times when it is necessary (and justified) for LE to use deadly force. When potentially deadly force is being used against LE I feel LE has every right (as the law, and as an individual person) to respond with equal or reasonably more deadly force.

However a huge problem with the decision to use a taser on a person (particularly a subdued person or person that is not a threat) is the LE recognizing "intent" of the potential taser victim. In this case it was a 10 year old girl having a temper tantrum b/c she didn't want to go to bed, was there intent to harm the LEO in such a way that he needed to resort to a taser?

That is the context I keep asking to be recognized.

10 year girl with a gun, knife or some foreign object that could cause serious harm to a person in the room, then yes unfortunately at some point the decision to use the taser would have to be made.

If the investigation shows that to be the case I will have no problem bumping this thread to apologize to Lead, Peek and the former cop for calling them names on the internet.

[FUDU]

"Of course knowing exactly what happened is important, and I'm not condemning based on a blurb I'm condemning based on the fact a grown police man used a taser on 10 year old girl. Or is that part a "disputable" fact?

But keep focusing on the that retard comment Peeker maybe that will distract attention away from the fact you cannot understand the common sense aspect and the 10 yr old girl context of the situation."



You accusing someone else of not using common sense just solidifies your apparent status as a 20/30-something with entitlement issues and a hard-on for authority..............Enjoy your naivete, eventually you will get it.......

That's hilarious and 180 degrees from reality, and heck even your boys in this thread know it. You'd know it if you were in this forum more than 5 minutes a year only to defend law enforcement.

[dem425]

I then apologize and stand corrected. Then, as a worldly 40/50 something who respects authority unconditionally, who dedicated his life's work to public service and raised children free of any behavioral issues.......................you should be ashamed of yourself.

BTW, hang onto your apologies, I'm sure there will be others much more deserving..........

[dem425]

One last thing:

The 5 minutes I spend on here was all the time I needed to identify those who are ignorant and argumentative. My upbringing was severly flawed. I was taught to speak up about things you know and shut up/learn about things you don't........and it only took me a little more than 100 posts........

[FUDU]

I then apologize and stand corrected. Then, as a worldly 40/50 something who respects authority unconditionally, who dedicated his life's work to public service and raised children free of any behavioral issues.......................you should be ashamed of yourself.

BTW, hang onto your apologies, I'm sure there will be others much more deserving..........

Well you pretty much proved my suspicion, here is your problem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unconditionally

[Orenthal]

I think it is perfectly understood. Constant second guessing of police tactics has led to the widespread use of the non-lethal taser. I'm just waiting for the next way police will be handcuffed once the taser is taken away... Just say you can't do anything to restrain an out of control 10 year old other then telling them to stand in the corner, or givin' them a time out...

Like in ET, just make'em carry walkie talkie's...

Every single situation is unique and should be viewed as such. It makes no sense and is wrong to make blanketing statements about personal responsibility in regards to don't do anything wrong and you won't get hit with a taser.

I am actually strongly against the notion that we NEED to come up with less lethal alternatives for LE b/c there are times when it is necessary (and justified) for LE to use deadly force. When potentially deadly force is being used against LE I feel LE has every right (as the law, and as an individual person) to respond with equal or reasonably more deadly force.

However a huge problem with the decision to use a taser on a person (particularly a subdued person or person that is not a threat) is the LE recognizing "intent" of the potential taser victim. In this case it was a 10 year old girl having a temper tantrum b/c she didn't want to go to bed, was there intent to harm the LEO in such a way that he needed to resort to a taser?

That is the context I keep asking to be recognized.

10 year girl with a gun, knife or some foreign object that could cause serious harm to a person in the room, then yes unfortunately at some point the decision to use the taser would have to be made.

If the investigation shows that to be the case I will have no problem bumping this thread to apologize to Lead, Peek and the former cop for calling them names on the internet.

Intent to harm... An officer makes the judgement that using a taser is the quickest, safest way to get the girl under control. Never mind the mother basically telling the officer to use the taser.

Who decides what qualifies intent to harm? Being 10 does not absolve one of any wrong doing, or that they may get treatment equal to their behavior. Total amost unrelated, but when I or my brothers would cause this kind of shit at our house my father used means much more abusive then a taser, just so happened that the rest of society was happy that such measures were used... I wish I had the excuse of "emotional problems"... Fundemental diff of opinion on this one...

Now I'm done...

[FUDU]

I think it is perfectly understood. Constant second guessing of police tactics has led to the widespread use of the non-lethal taser. I'm just waiting for the next way police will be handcuffed once the taser is taken away... Just say you can't do anything to restrain an out of control 10 year old other then telling them to stand in the corner, or givin' them a time out...

Like in ET, just make'em carry walkie talkie's...

Every single situation is unique and should be viewed as such. It makes no sense and is wrong to make blanketing statements about personal responsibility in regards to don't do anything wrong and you won't get hit with a taser.

I am actually strongly against the notion that we NEED to come up with less lethal alternatives for LE b/c there are times when it is necessary (and justified) for LE to use deadly force. When potentially deadly force is being used against LE I feel LE has every right (as the law, and as an individual person) to respond with equal or reasonably more deadly force.

However a huge problem with the decision to use a taser on a person (particularly a subdued person or person that is not a threat) is the LE recognizing "intent" of the potential taser victim. In this case it was a 10 year old girl having a temper tantrum b/c she didn't want to go to bed, was there intent to harm the LEO in such a way that he needed to resort to a taser?

That is the context I keep asking to be recognized.

10 year girl with a gun, knife or some foreign object that could cause serious harm to a person in the room, then yes unfortunately at some point the decision to use the taser would have to be made.

If the investigation shows that to be the case I will have no problem bumping this thread to apologize to Lead, Peek and the former cop for calling them names on the internet.

Intent to harm... An officer makes the judgement that using a taser is the quickest, safest way to get the girl under control. Never mind the mother basically telling the officer to use the taser.

Who decides what qualifies intent to harm? Being 10 does not absolve one of any wrong doing, or that they may get treatment equal to their behavior. Total amost unrelated, but when I or my brothers would cause this kind of shit at our house my father used means much more abusive then a taser, just so happened that the rest of society was happy that such measures were used... I wish I had the excuse of "emotional problems"... Fundemental diff of opinion on this one...

Now I'm done...

Yes intent, it is a very serious part of the equation.

10 years olds are not adults and do not have the experiences of life and full capacity to understand a great many things, often including when to do something or when not to do something.

As far as the upbringing we're on the same page, and you're finally hitting on the big issue here. (I used to get it pretty good when I got out of line). Sorry but law enforcement has no business inside somebody's house for a simple child rearing situation. This may call for a totally different thread, who knows but we not talking about anything other than what goes on everyday in tens of millions of homes in this country.

However a mother telling an LEO to do something doesn't make that something right nor make that something a reasonably intelligent or correct thing to do. I could bring up countless examples of how illogical that is....hey shoot that kid that is fighting with my kid officer, hey shoot my husband for hitting me in the face, hey shoot that dog that bit my kid.

I always preferred the wooden spoon myself.

[dem425]

"Well you pretty much proved my suspicion, here is your problem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ditionally"

Yes, your honor, I am guilty of "Gross Misuse of a Suffix"........

But really..............is that the best you got?

I would have responded sooner, but I was watching a cop taser the neighbor's constipated 6-year old figuring that would loosen him up.......

[peeker643]

FUDU wrote:

10 years olds are not adults and do not have the experiences of life and full capacity to understand a great many things, often including when to do something or when not to do something.

Really? All my kids and most others I know understood that you listen to what your parents tell you or there are consequences before they were half that chick's age. My fucking beagles get that concept. Maybe your kids are different.

As far as the upbringing we're on the same page, and you're finally hitting on the big issue here. (I used to get it pretty good when I got out of line).

Congrats Orenthal. FUDU thinks you're grasping it. Finally.

Sorry but law enforcement has no business inside somebody's house for a simple child rearing situation.

Yep. Right up until the time they're fucking called by the parent to help. That would seem to remove the 'simple' from the fact, no?

However a mother telling an LEO to do something doesn't make that something right nor make that something a reasonably intelligent or correct thing to do. I could bring up countless examples of how illogical that is....hey shoot that kid that is fighting with my kid officer, hey shoot my husband for hitting me in the face, hey shoot that dog that bit my kid.

Apples and apples? Mother says, "Help. I can't stop her. Please get her to stop even if you have to tase her before she hurts herself badly." A girl with 'emotional issues' as her father stated. Officer goes through the littany of attempts (I hope) and then, short of any response, ends the situation with the next level of response.

That's the same as the mom saying, "Hey, shoot that other kid." ???

[jfiling]

I'm going to ask for the last time, because I'm sick of not getting an answer. I'm even going to use ALLCAPS because I'm really hating all the dodging.

WHAT WAS THE FUCKING ARRESTABLE OFFENSE FOR WHICH DUSTIN BRADSHAW WAS TRYING TO HANDCUFF THIS GIRL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

[peeker643]

I'm going to ask for the last time, because I'm sick of not getting an answer. I'm even going to use ALLCAPS because I'm really hating all the dodging.

WHAT WAS THE FUCKING ARRESTABLE OFFENSE FOR WHICH DUSTIN BRADSHAW WAS TRYING TO HANDCUFF THIS GIRL IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Dude, it was addressed a page ago.

I cannot speak for Arkansas law (insert your own joke here) regarding juveniles. In Ohio, juveniles can only be charged under TWO offenses: unruly and delinquent. Unruly pertains to rules only a juvenile can violate like:

Truant from school
Curfew violations
"UNRULINESS" at home (which includes things like back-talking, refusing parental orders, etc)

Delinquency involves actual crimes committed that adults can go to jail for....Murder, raper, robbery, assault, domestic violence, disorderly conduct, etc.

A juvenile can be arrested for unruly or delinquency depending on the offense committed. If a child commits either and the parent(s) tell the police they cannot handle them, then the police must take the child to a juveile facility. If a crime was committed, the child will be held until they go before a referee or judge. Generally, juvenile detention facilities will only hold juveniles for 24-48 hours.

A parent who has lost all control of their children will likely look for someone to handle the problems they should have been addressing all along.

A police officer called to the home of an "unruly" juvenile (which in this case, I believe fits the bill) must first of all try and gain some semblence of control that the parent(s) have apparently lost or most likely, never had.

Mom calls, says daughter is out of control. Police respond, she is unruly. He tries to calm her down, can't do it, tells her she's going to jail if it doesn't stop. It doesn't stop. She's tasered and taken to wherever she was taken to (it's in the links I quoted).

Take a pill, drink a beer. The police state and boogey men will still be everywhere when you wake up.

Can't believe it's not all in the detailed police report that smoking gun posted.

[FUDU]

dem, grammar smack is the best you got? Really. I feel bad for you if you really look at authority as unconditional.

Peeker are you intentionally going out of your way to twist things up or are you doing it accidentally. If anybody was going to miss my point (to Orenthal), I would have guessed it be you. The point was to his notion that the mom said taser the child so it makes it all good b/c the parent Ok'd it. That is illogical. The mom could be a crack head for all we know. Plus technically I never gave Orenthal credit for grasping it, I said he hit on a bigger issue.

10 year olds of course are not idiots but ten year olds are still fallible when it comes to judgments of right/wrong and understanding consequences. Hell the kid was probably quite shocked to see a police officer come over b/c she didn't want to go to bed. 99% of 10 yr olds would probably laugh if somebody told them they are calling the police on them if they don't hit the sack right now.

Kind of shocked still that many of you really cannot see how absurd it is to even have the police there, b/c a child didn't want to go bed.

[jfiling]

Peek, that reading of the law is lacking.

2151.022 Unruly child defined.

As used in this chapter, “unruly child” includes any of the following:

(A) Any child who does not submit to the reasonable control of the child’s parents, teachers, guardian, or custodian, by reason of being wayward or habitually disobedient;

(B) Any child who is an habitual truant from school and who previously has not been adjudicated an unruly child for being an habitual truant;

(C) Any child who behaves in a manner as to injure or endanger the child’s own health or morals or the health or morals of others;

(D) Any child who violates a law, other than division (C) of section 2907.39, division (A) of section 2923.211, division (C)(1) or (D) of section 2925.55, or section 2151.87 of the Revised Code, that is applicable only to a child.

Effective Date: 01-01-2002; 05-17-2006; 08-17-2006

I bolded the only thing he may have been referring to, and even if the law in Arkansas is the same, there is no proof of habitual disobedience. So, I'm still waiting for the answer.

[leadpipe]

dem, grammar smack is the best you got? Really. I feel bad for you if you really look at authority as unconditional.

Peeker are you intentionally going out of your way to twist things up or are you doing it accidentally. If anybody was going to miss my point (to Orenthal), I would have guessed it be you. The point was to his notion that the mom said taser the child so it makes it all good b/c the parent Ok'd it. That is illogical. The mom could be a crack head for all we know. Plus technically I never gave Orenthal credit for grasping it, I said he hit on a bigger issue.

10 year olds of course are not idiots but ten year olds are still fallible when it comes to judgments of right/wrong and understanding consequences. Hell the kid was probably quite shocked to see a police officer come over b/c she didn't want to go to bed. 99% of 10 yr olds would probably laugh if somebody told them they are calling the police on them if they don't hit the sack right now.

Kind of shocked still that many of you really cannot see how absurd it is to even have the police there, b/c a child didn't want to go bed.

How is it shocking?

It's fucking 2009. If that request goes unanswered and the kid goes apeshit and hurts herself or the mom, the type of person that is such a shitty parent is the exact smae person calling a greaseball lawyer and blaming the authorities for not answering the call.

And don't even think this doesn't matter.

It's absurd that the lady had to call the cops yes, but in our litigous society it is absolutely not absurd for the police to be there.

Clearly.

Can't have it both ways here. If you think that the mom is a bad person for calling the police and requesting the taser, than you HAVE to understand why they were there.

[peeker643]

dem, grammar smack is the best you got? Really. I feel bad for you if you really look at authority as unconditional.

Peeker are you intentionally going out of your way to twist things up or are you doing it accidentally. If anybody was going to miss my point (to Orenthal), I would have guessed it be you. The point was to his notion that the mom said taser the child so it makes it all good b/c the parent Ok'd it. That is illogical. The mom could be a crack head for all we know. Plus technically I never gave Orenthal credit for grasping it, I said he hit on a bigger issue.

10 year olds of course are not idiots but ten year olds are still fallible when it comes to judgments of right/wrong and understanding consequences. Hell the kid was probably quite shocked to see a police officer come over b/c she didn't want to go to bed. 99% of 10 yr olds would probably laugh if somebody told them they are calling the police on them if they don't hit the sack right now.

Kind of shocked still that many of you really cannot see how absurd it is to even have the police there, b/c a child didn't want to go bed.

Oh Christ, Cpt Syntax Fuckedup is questioning me once again. I know exactly what you were saying. Just stunned you couldn't put something together less ridiculous.

Look, I can't break it down any more simply than to tell you no one gives a shit if you think he should have been there or not. He'd probably rather deal with some fucked up DUI stop than dealing with parenting issues.

But he got called. And it's his job to go.

Forget everything else Donny. Put it all away in another corner of your head. It doesn't matter when he answers the radio if it's bedtime issues, milk and cookie issues, Hannah Montana issues or because she's selling rock on the streets to whores.

He's there.

Kid's unruly.

Now he deals with it or he leaves. And he leaves with the risk that something really shitty happens to her or her mom or both. Or he resolves it and moves on with his life.

I can't believe anyone is too dense to understand that or is too damned deep in a bad take hole to admit it.

And stop with 10 year olds being 'fallible'. Everyone is fallible. There are people going to prison every gd day who are older than ten and didn't understand the consequences of their actions for however long it took them to go out of bounds.

You think she knows not to step in front of a bus Donny? Does she have that level of reason at ten? Look both ways kind of thing? If so then she's old enough to know what she was doing was wrong.

We just fundamentally disagree on things bro. You seem to believe you understand parenting, policing and calling offensive plays better than the people who actually do it. I typically tend to defer to people who actually do those things until they prove me wrong.

Maybe I need to be more aggressive on those fronts.

It's cool. I love most of your stuff. It's provocative at least.


jfiling- that wasn't quoting statute or regulations. It was from a post earlier that touched on the reasons police in Ohio show up at these kind of calls.

Short of that, you're on your own.

Mom called...bad things happening...need help....cop shows up. You're a smart man, you can figure it out. I will tell you police reports are often tremendous sources of fiction. Doesn't matter to me if that's the case here. Guy walked into a steaming pile of shit and it never got much better.

Peace gentlemen. The holiday season is nearly upon us.

[FUDU]

How is it shocking?

It's fucking 2009. If that request goes unanswered and the kid goes apeshit and hurts herself or the mom, the type of person that is such a shitty parent is the exact smae person calling a greaseball lawyer and blaming the authorities for not answering the call.

And don't even think this doesn't matter.

It's absurd that the lady had to call the cops yes, but in our litigous society it is absolutely not absurd for the police to be there.

Clearly.

Can't have it both ways here. If you think that the mom is a bad person for calling the police and requesting the taser, than you HAVE to understand why they were there.


Report this post

Oh I get all that, it is quite pathetic that life in this world works out that way so often.

I find an interesting point in that take, not sure if if is a point you intended to make or not, but the police being there B/C OF mom is note worthy. Maybe just maybe LE felt more compelled to be there to protect the child from the mom, seeing as it is very obvious the mom is clueless about being a mom. IMO still doesn't detract from the bad judgment of the taser part of the story.

[jfiling]

He's there.

Kid's unruly.

Now he deals with it or he leaves. And he leaves with the risk that something really shitty happens to her or her mom or both. Or he resolves it and moves on with his life.

I can't believe anyone is too dense to understand that or is too damned deep in a bad take hole to admit it.

And there is the disagreement that isn't likely to be resolved. A 10 year old girl was tasered. You don't consider that to be "something really shitty". Google the story, read the comments. Most people think that the tasering incident falls into the category of "something really shitty" happening.

Really, the only argument here is between people thinking it's ok to taser a 10 year old, and people who think that doing that is never acceptable.

[jb]

I know I am going to regret this, but here goes:

I cannot speak for Arkansas law (insert your own joke here) regarding juveniles. In Ohio, juveniles can only be charged under TWO offenses: unruly and delinquent. Unruly pertains to rules only a juvenile can violate like:

Truant from school
Curfew violations
"UNRULINESS" at home (which includes things like back-talking, refusing parental orders, etc)

Delinquency involves actual crimes committed that adults can go to jail for....Murder, raper, robbery, assault, domestic violence, disorderly conduct, etc.

A juvenile can be arrested for unruly or delinquency depending on the offense committed. If a child commits either and the parent tell the police they cannot handle them, then the police must take the child to a juveile facility. If a crime was committed, the child will be held until they go before a referee or judge. Generally, juvenile detention facilities will only hold juveniles for 24-48 hours.

A parent who has lost all control of their children will likely look for someone to handle the problems they should have been addressing all along.

A police officer called to the home of an "unruly" juvenile (which in this case, I believe fits the bill) must first of all try and gain some semblence of control that the parent have apparently lost or most likely, never had. During the Jurassic period when I was a cop, we might have tried to restrain and control them physically which means having to put our hands on them, subduing them (by means of joint/nerve manipulation, baton techniques or just good old wrestling moves) and them attempting some type of restraint such as flex cuff or hobbles.

Talking is usually the first line of defense, but if you have ever seen an out of control child (regardless of age or sex), talking generally doesn't work. SO, do we:

Have the big bad cops wrestle Little Nell to the ground and cuff/hog-tie risking substantial injury to cop and kid, OR
Spray her with pepper spray OR
Tase her OR
Walk away(go back to our coffee and donuts) and leave parents/children to their own devices OR
..............................I will let you come up with some other ideas.........

Children services will respond ONLY in cases of dire emergencies...........

I have stated on record that supplementary police tools like Pepper spray, batons, tasers, etc.... are in vogue more and more today because workers comp injuries to cops are skyrocketing and manufacturers of "less than lethal" equipment have convinced the police administrators that pepper spray and tasing are "safer" than putting hands on someone....Do SOME cops use TOO much pepper spray and OVER REACT with tasers.............Undeniably YES!...........BUT they are in the friggin minority..........Get that through your heads!!!

Without being too condescending, what do YOU folks who graciously paid my salary for all those years think we should do?

+ 1.

Euclid, eh? I bet you busted peeker amd i being young punks in the early 80's.

[FUDU]

We just fundamentally disagree on things bro. You seem to believe you understand parenting, policing and calling offensive plays better than the people who actually do it. I typically tend to defer to people who actually do those things until they prove me wrong.

No Peek it is just that I have very extensive second hand knowledge of child abuses and first hand knowledge of what it is like to be a child that is in a tough parenting situation. Treating children properly and understanding they are children is not a difficult process, it is not ALWAYS as simple as a black & white issue (often gray) but with some attention to details and some thought is is much easier than it is made in the situations like in this news reports we see. I can virtually guarantee you my source of second hand knowledge on child abuses could have resolved that situation without a taser, might have taken an hour but it would have been resolved. [/macphisto schtick]. But seriously though.....

Plus honestly I am still surprised at your sensitivity to the comments earlier. We (meaning a whole bunch of us) have done this internet forum stuff with each other for years now. We know how people are and that they are "good" people despite not seeing eye to eye on the smorgasbord of topic we discuss. The comment was meant to insult anybody, meant to demean a little, of course, but your a big boy, this is a NHB forum, you'll be fine. If somebody is or has a loved one that is mentally challenged I would certainly hope they can figure out that it was a general insult not a specific one meant to demean anybody but the person(s) I replied to.

[jb]

We just fundamentally disagree on things bro. You seem to believe you understand parenting, policing and calling offensive plays better than the people who actually do it. I typically tend to defer to people who actually do those things until they prove me wrong.

No Peek it is just that I have very extensive second hand knowledge of child abuses and first hand knowledge of what it is like to be a child that is in a tough parenting situation. Treating children properly and understanding they are children is not a difficult process, it is not ALWAYS as simple as a black & white issue (often gray) but with some attention to details and some thought is is much easier than it is made in the situations like in this news reports we see. I can virtually guarantee you my source of second hand knowledge on child abuses could have resolved that situation without a taser, might have taken an hour but it would have been resolved. [/macphisto schtick]. But seriously though.....

Plus honestly I am still surprised at your sensitivity to the comments earlier. We (meaning a whole bunch of us) have done this internet forum stuff with each other for years now. We know how people are and that they are "good" people despite not seeing eye to eye on the smorgasbord of topic we discuss. The comment was meant to insult anybody, meant to demean a little, of course, but your a big boy, this is a NHB forum, you'll be fine. If somebody is or has a loved one that is mentally challenged I would certainly hope they can figure out that it was a general insult not a specific one meant to demean anybody but the person(s) I replied to.

Here's why it's ok to use "retard". Beacause no one uses that word to define anyone developmentally diabled or afflicted with any chromosonal issues. It has morphed in meaning. Now only a PC nerd or someone overly maudlin would take serious offense. Its an act.


BTW FUDU, what are your kids' ages?

[peeker643]

He's there.

Kid's unruly.

Now he deals with it or he leaves. And he leaves with the risk that something really shitty happens to her or her mom or both. Or he resolves it and moves on with his life.

I can't believe anyone is too dense to understand that or is too damned deep in a bad take hole to admit it.

And there is the disagreement that isn't likely to be resolved. A 10 year old girl was tasered. You don't consider that to be "something really shitty". Google the story, read the comments. Most people think that the tasering incident falls into the category of "something really shitty" happening.

Really, the only argument here is between people thinking it's ok to taser a 10 year old, and people who think that doing that is never acceptable.

j- YES. Tasering a 10 year old is shitty. That should (and therefore did) go without saying. I'd be apoplectic if my nine or 12 yr old was tasered. Out of my mind crazy.

But if I'm a cop and that is the best resolution to the problem at hand after a lot of thought, consideration and attempts at resolving the issue are unsuccessful then I'm tasering the 10 year old.

Every time. That may make me a prick and I'd have a hell of a time sleeping for a month, but ultimately if all parties walk away and are able to go on with their lives afterward, and no further harm comes to a kid with emotional problem that night, I'd ultimately feel I did the right thing.

That's the issue I don't think you and FUDU were looking at.

It's ridiculous for mom to have zero control.
Ridiculous that the cops were called.
Ridiculous that a 10 year old was tasered.

But it may have been the last resort to end the ridiculousness.

That's all I'm saying. Don't assume a guy walked in and when John Wayne with a taser. You have no idea what went down and what the situation called for and I believe a situation like that could get to the point where it got to with you, me or FUDU in that house.

[jb]

He's there.

Kid's unruly.

Now he deals with it or he leaves. And he leaves with the risk that something really shitty happens to her or her mom or both. Or he resolves it and moves on with his life.

I can't believe anyone is too dense to understand that or is too damned deep in a bad take hole to admit it.

And there is the disagreement that isn't likely to be resolved. A 10 year old girl was tasered. You don't consider that to be "something really shitty". Google the story, read the comments. Most people think that the tasering incident falls into the category of "something really shitty" happening.

Really, the only argument here is between people thinking it's ok to taser a 10 year old, and people who think that doing that is never acceptable.

j- YES. Tasering a 10 year old is shitty. That should (and therefore did) go without saying. I'd be apoplectic if my nine or 12 yr old was tasered. Out of my mind crazy.

But if I'm a cop and that is the best resolution to the problem at hand after a lot of thought, consideration and attempts at resolving the issue are unsuccessful then I'm tasering the 10 year old.

Every time. That may make me a prick and I'd have a hell of a time sleeping for a month, but ultimately if all parties walk away and are able to go on with their lives afterward, and no further harm comes to a kid with emotional problem that night, I'd ultimately feel I did the right thing.

That's the issue I don't think you and FUDU were looking at.

It's ridiculous for mom to have zero control.
Ridiculous that the cops were called.
Ridiculous that a 10 year old was tasered.

But it may have been the last resort to end the ridiculousness.

That's all I'm saying. Don't assume a guy walked in and when John Wayne with a taser. You have no idea what went down and what the situation called for and I believe a situation like that could get to the point where it got to with you, me or FUDU in that house.

would john wayne use a taser?

[jfiling]

No. It's never OK to use "retard". At least as much as it's never OK to use "nigger" or "faggot". All are hateful words, and by their use they demean the people who are described by them, by using who they are as an insult to other people.

[FUDU]

Well Peek that post clears up some of the misconceptions brought about in this thread. I really went in thinking no way you would think hitting a 10 yr old with a taser was OK, but the further it went on the more you seemed to convince me you were OK with the concept in general.

I personally see it as it is never OK to do unless life or death (or very serious harm) is involved. Obviously you disagree.

Done.

..and dad, you're funny.

[FUDU]

No. It's never OK to use "retard".

Ah cmon man.

Give some people benefit of the doubt. Shouldn't be used if at all possible sure, but it is what it is. Used more for effect than anything.

[peeker643]

We just fundamentally disagree on things bro. You seem to believe you understand parenting, policing and calling offensive plays better than the people who actually do it. I typically tend to defer to people who actually do those things until they prove me wrong.

No Peek it is just that I have very extensive second hand knowledge of child abuses and first hand knowledge of what it is like to be a child that is in a tough parenting situation. Treating children properly and understanding they are children is not a difficult process, it is not ALWAYS as simple as a black & white issue (often gray) but with some attention to details and some thought is is much easier than it is made in the situations like in this news reports we see. I can virtually guarantee you my source of second hand knowledge on child abuses could have resolved that situation without a taser, might have taken an hour but it would have been resolved. [/macphisto schtick]. But seriously though.....

Plus honestly I am still surprised at your sensitivity to the comments earlier. We (meaning a whole bunch of us) have done this internet forum stuff with each other for years now. We know how people are and that they are "good" people despite not seeing eye to eye on the smorgasbord of topic we discuss. The comment was meant to insult anybody, meant to demean a little, of course, but your a big boy, this is a NHB forum, you'll be fine. If somebody is or has a loved one that is mentally challenged I would certainly hope they can figure out that it was a general insult not a specific one meant to demean anybody but the person(s) I replied to.

Donny, because we've talked for years about such things the word was out of line IMO. Go with douchebag or asshole or dickhead or something that applies when you're addressing me specifically. That won't offend. I thought it was out of line. So did others apparently. Not because it was me to whom you partially referred, I don't care. But it's just disrespectful to people who, through no fault of their own, are dealing with it.

Fuck, maybe it was a just a case of being thin-skinned. Whatever. The PoS comment was quid pro quo. Nothing more and you know that.

And I agree a trained professional could have been of far more use. But that wasn't the situation. As JB mentioned earlier somewhere, don't hate the player, hate the game. All I'm saying is that in this case the methods he used may have been his last resort. There's nothing we know indicating it wasn't and ultimately everyone was able to move on.

And like I said above, if faced with the prospects of the girl hurting herself or her mother or her mother losing it and hurting the girl, I can understand why he did what he did. Not that I'm in favor of it. But I can see how a situation like that would resolve like this one did.

[jb]

No. It's never OK to use "retard". At least as much as it's never OK to use "nigger" or "faggot". All are hateful words, and by their use they demean the people who are described by them, by using who they are as an insult to other people.

N bombs get you beat down.

F bombs get you fired.

They have power.

"Retard" is in most people's daily vocabulary, like "bitch". Retarded can even now be used as a superlative.

"Idiot" once had denotative meaning. So did "moron". Now no one cares, and for goood reason.

For an alleged Rand liberatarian ir sure feels like you sure like telling people what they may and may not do.

Kinda a retarded ironic when you think about it, eh?

[jb]

Fuck, maybe it was a just a case of being skin headed. Whatever.

[jb]

Well Peek that post clears up some of the misconceptions brought about in this thread. I really went in thinking no way you would think hitting a 10 yr old with a taser was OK, but the further it went on the more you seemed to convince me you were OK with the concept in general.

I personally see it as it is never OK to do unless life or death (or very serious harm) is involved. Obviously you disagree.

Done.

..and dad, you're funny.

should i roll with "mongaloid?"

[jb]

We just fundamentally disagree on things bro. You seem to believe you understand parenting, policing and calling offensive plays better than the people who actually do it. I typically tend to defer to people who actually do those things until they prove me wrong.

No Peek it is just that I have very extensive second hand knowledge of child abuses and first hand knowledge of what it is like to be a child that is in a tough parenting situation. Treating children properly and understanding they are children is not a difficult process, it is not ALWAYS as simple as a black & white issue (often gray) but with some attention to details and some thought is is much easier than it is made in the situations like in this news reports we see. I can virtually guarantee you my source of second hand knowledge on child abuses could have resolved that situation without a taser, might have taken an hour but it would have been resolved. [/macphisto schtick]. But seriously though.....

Plus honestly I am still surprised at your sensitivity to the comments earlier. We (meaning a whole bunch of us) have done this internet forum stuff with each other for years now. We know how people are and that they are "good" people despite not seeing eye to eye on the smorgasbord of topic we discuss. The comment was meant to insult anybody, meant to demean a little, of course, but your a big boy, this is a NHB forum, you'll be fine. If somebody is or has a loved one that is mentally challenged I would certainly hope they can figure out that it was a general insult not a specific one meant to demean anybody but the person(s) I replied to.

Donny, because we've talked for years about such things the word was out of line IMO. Go with douchebag or asshole or dickhead or something that applies when you're addressing me specifically. That won't offend. I thought it was out of line. So did others apparently. Not because it was me to whom you partially referred, I don't care. But it's just disrespectful to people who, through no fault of their own, are dealing with it.

Fuck, maybe it was a just a case of being thin-skinned. Whatever. The PoS comment was quid pro quo. Nothing more and you know that.

And I agree a trained professional could have been of far more use. But that wasn't the situation. As JB mentioned earlier somewhere, don't hate the player, hate the game. All I'm saying is that in this case the methods he used may have been his last resort. There's nothing we know indicating it wasn't and ultimately everyone was able to move on.

And like I said above, if faced with the prospects of the girl hurting herself or her mother or her mother losing it and hurting the girl, I can understand why he did what he did. Not that I'm in favor of it. But I can see how a situation like that would resolve like this one did.

A situation where a cop was FUCKED NO MATTER WHAT HE DID. Period.

FUDU , if she was posessed by the devil does that mitigate tasing?

[peeker643]

would john wayne use a taser?

I saw him use one on a young Ricky Nelson in 'Rio Bravo' when the studios were besieged by an anti-violence movement in Hollywood.

Look closely next time it's on.

[jb]

would john wayne use a taser?

I saw him use one on a young Ricky Nelson in 'Rio Bravo' when the studios were besieged by an anti-violence movement in Hollywood.

Look closely next time it's on.

I've seen it. Deano bets him he won't do it and he does.

[Orenthal]

Kinda a retarded ironic when you think about it, eh?

Then again maybe not JB, the old bitch Rand didn't practice what she preached. She ran her followers and underlings like a ruthless infallible dictator...