Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by spaceboots06, Jul 24, 2009.
Video on the above site.
Tasered in court.
Nothing surprises me these days.
I wonder if they'll show what happened right before he was tasered. The video linked cuts to the prosecutor as he is being tasered. Did he advance at that point?
To me it seems as if he had a tantrum, then stopped. Then was tasered.
Seems like it.
However, the way the video is cut it's hard to tell. He definitely stated some obscene comments, flipped the desk over, then was tasered.
I don't think that judge could have been any more impassive if she were Judge Dredd.
What's deal with the old bailiff? From reading the story, it looks like he let go because he heard "taser," which means they decided to tase him as soon as he flipped the table, no?
the way they edited and cut off pieces of the video made it seem like a comedy...
As you can see, video does not tell the whole story. It is by nature a manipulative medium, and is rendered even more manipulative when tiny portions are edited and slapped up on the web. A camera shows a single point of view that can be very deceptive, based upon differing lens lengths, f stop settings, lighting and actions by the operator.
No one here was present in the courtroom and knows what happened. It seems everyone is ready to jump to a short attention span conclusion ("police brutality"), when in fact, further analysis and witness interviews may well establish that the use of force was appropriate under the circumstances. I have worked in courtrooms on a daily basis, and even civil case like family law, often involve serious risk.
Not only tasered, but tasered for 6 straight seconds.
I'm trying to find out why the old bailiff jumped away as well. It's a weird reaction on his part.
Yes, no one here was there, but you do think that was the best way to end this when the defendant is handcuffed with two bailiffs on either side of him?
I'm not yelling police brutality, I'm just in shock of the end result.
EDIT:Yes, the video had very weird cuts that leaves much to the imagination.
TJRiver, I think it's you who's jumping to conclusions.
3 out of 5 people commenting on this thread explicitly mentioned the video cutting and/or things being difficult to tell. I didn't feel a need to echo them in my reply (even though I agree with them) because it's been stated THREE times already.
I can't speak for Spaceboots, but that's at least 4/5 people who aren't jumping on anyone's case. So I'm wondering where you get, 'It seems everyone is ready to jump to a short attention span conclusion ("police brutality")' from what's being said.
I believe that it is so he doesn't receive the effect of the Taser.
That much is certain. There is no way to follow the flow. We can only see parts, if you will.
Yeah, I understand how tasers work. I'd venture a guess to say that if that's how quickly they went to tasers, it's just their SOP. I wonder if they have a fallback in case the target is in contact with a civilian.
My understanding, which is not the understanding of the police, is that it should be used when the alternative is to take a gun and shoot and kill someone. A taser is always potentially lethal and has been lethal in many cases.
Here is what the hero in possession of the taser said: "It ended it quickly," Yates said. "That's what they are trained to do. We're not going to fist fight and roll around the floor with people."" Every time a taser is used someone could die.
As far as I'm concerned, when you start threatening someone and are acting in the way this man was acting you give up your rights to a "calm resolution".
Yes, tasers can and do kill, but it's better and safer in most cases than a bullet.
The man wasn't beaten, nor was he tased excessively. Seemed by the book to me.
The guy's an idiot.
And every time violence of any sort is employed by any of the parties, a death could ensue. Tasers are certainly a far preferable way to deal with a violent assault than nearly any other method in use or realistically available today.
Remember, the point is not to non-violently make someone to stop, but to make them stop with a minimal risk to the officer and bystanders, period. Screw the assailant. Being told to use their inside voice or putting them in time-out is not going to resolve the situation.
How about being shot and stabbed in a courtroom?
But tasers are not only used in violent assaults. As an example, one man was tasered to death on an Airport because he damaged furniture and a computer in an office. There was no danger for anyone's health; they could have waited outside for him to calm down (there were people in the office, but they sensibly left), arrest him, charge him, give him the bill for the damage. Instead security went in and tasered him until he was gone.
what's up with all these people getting tasered these days?
haha poor guy
It seems to me that the only reason tasers are used is because the person doing the tasering is too lazy to use any other means of resolving a heightened situation, or that they take pleasure in doing it?
Tasers, unlike fists/batons/guns, leave no real marks afterwards.
And the general public still has the perception they are completely harmless in ALL respects. Anyone who has died from a tase was just unfortunate...or however they justify it to themselves.
If you watch the Court Cases gone wild, or whatever they call it on TRU TV, you would understand why they may an SOP like this.
Holy crap - this video is shocking. Shocking!
What ever may or may not have happened that you don't see in the video to justify it, he was laying there helpless and handcuffed on the floor and getting tased continuously well after he had been subdued.
Justified or not I couldn't say, but I think it was excessive in it's duration.
Well played, sir, well played.
I could have sworn I heard the old Bailiff say "Don't tase me bro" right before he jumped back.
The guy deserved to be tased. Who know what else he would have done. Better safe than sorry.