Utopia Talk / Politics / Texas Granny tasered - More info

Camaban Moderator	Wed Jun 10 21:31:05 Well she was damn silly. She also legally gave the officer permission to taser her. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25619277-38198,00.html A 72-YEAR-OLD great-grandmother chose the wrong policeman when she dared Deputy Constable Chris Bieze to Taser her. Kathryn Winkfein made headlines last month after she was stopped by Const Bieze for speeding. Caught doing nearly 100km/h in a 70km/h zone in Travis County, Texas, Ms Winkfein refused to accept the ticket. The official police word was Ms Winkfein â??mouthed off, then was physically non-compliantâ??. Const Bieze's response was to send 50,000 volts through her body. Twice. Ms Winkfein told her story to media outlets, claiming she did nothing to provoke the Taser â??attackâ??. But video footage released overnight from Const Bieze's car shows Winkfein swearing and shouting at the officer, then daring him to Taser her. â??You gonna shove me?â?? Ms Winkfein tells Const Bieze in the video. â??You gonna shove a 72-year-old woman?â?? â??Step back or Iâ??m going to Taser you,â?? she is told. â??Go ahead, Taser me,â?? she replies. After five more warnings, the â??combativeâ?? Ms Winkfein was then Tasered. In the video, she can be seen screaming on the ground after being zapped by the 50,000-volt charge. Const Bieze fires another jolt of electricity into her body when she tries to get up. Precinct 3 Sergeant Major Gary Griffin told UK tabloid The Sun: "She was using language I wouldn't expect any woman to use, let alone a 72-year-old woman." â??Thereâ??s nobody that wanted this to happen any worse, than Deputy Chris Bieze." Ms Winkfein did not require an ambulance and is yet to respond to the video footage.
habebe Member	Wed Jun 10 21:47:57 I half thought it was grandma (recently moved to Texas) but she wouldn't have willingly let them taser her, but I could see her getting tasered
Camaban Moderator	Wed Jun 10 21:51:59 Well, most people aren't willing to be tasered Then again, most people don't give their permission to be tasered on a recorded medium.
Nekran Member	Wed Jun 10 22:13:30 "She also legally gave the officer permission to taser her." Does it make it legal? If I tell a cop he can kick me in the face, I'm pretty sure it still wouldn't be all right for him to actually do it.
MrPresident07 Member	Wed Jun 10 22:45:22 I saw this story, and the officer should be fired. If you can't cuff a 72 year old lady, you aren't fit for duty.
Camaban Moderator	Wed Jun 10 22:53:46 >>Does it make it legal? If I tell a cop he can kick me in the face, I'm pretty sure it still wouldn't be all right for him to actually do it. << Actually, it might. I know that here it would be you giving the person permission to do it. I found that out when I charged someone with assault, and one of the questions I was asked was did I ever say anything along the lines of 'Go on, hit me'? >>I saw this story, and the officer should be fired. If you can't cuff a 72 year old lady, you aren't fit for duty. << And then when she got bruised or injured during the scuffle, we'd have the same situation again.
Camaban Moderator	Wed Jun 10 22:54:41 Plus, there was heavy traffic just behind them.
habebe Member	Wed Jun 10 22:57:40 " Well, most people aren't willing to be tasered Then again, most people don't give their permission to be tasered on a recorded medium." I never let anyone else taze me, but I have tasered myself to see how I would react...not really that painfull, it stings for about a second and you just collapse, the fall is probably worse than the sting.
MrPresident07 Member	Wed Jun 10 23:04:17 No, I'm sure most people would be more sympathetic to the officer if he had to cuff her as opposed to tasing her.
Camaban Moderator	Wed Jun 10 23:14:40 >>No, I'm sure most people would be more sympathetic to the officer if he had to cuff her as opposed to tasing her. << Maybe, but there'd still be a stink about it. And she gave him permission to taser her, not cuff her. Plus, cuffing may have involved a struggle right next to a highway (I'd have been cautious about that), there's also no knowing what she had within reach.
mexicantornado Member	Thu Jun 11 00:59:45 Yes you try and cuff some random woman you dont know and who is acting very strange and then when you get close she sprays you with pepper spray or cuts at you with a knife etc. People never seem to understand that cops put their lives on the line every day dealing with the crazy fucks that we cross the street to avoid. They don't want to put up with bullshit and will come at you with an 8 if you come at them with a 2.
roland Member	Thu Jun 11 01:02:53 I think the cop, you are train to restraint criminals, if they can't even do that to a old woman, that's very pathetic.
mexicantornado Member	Thu Jun 11 01:03:47 Yes you are trained to use your taser if some asshole doesn't do what you say. You are not trained to wrestle with everyone who gives you shit. Doing that would be fucking stupid.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 01:14:39 >>I think the cop, you are train to restraint criminals, if they can't even do that to a old woman, that's very pathetic. << True, but just because you're trained in it doesn't mean it's the best option. Plus, what if during the struggle they stepped out into traffic? Plus, you're ignoring that she gave him permission to tase her. He also gave her five warnings on what would happen (in addition to receiving her permission)
roland Member	Thu Jun 11 01:24:16 "You are not trained to wrestle with everyone who gives you shit. " They are not? "Plus, what if during the struggle they stepped out into traffic?" In the video, the officer actually pushed her a few times, I think the officer is a reasonable position to restraint her. "Plus, you're ignoring that she gave him permission to tase her. " And if she gave him permission to push her into the traffic? or shoot her in the head? "He also gave her five warnings on what would happen (in addition to receiving her permission)" That's why I say he should try to restraint her, but not with the taser.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 02:23:55 >>"You are not trained to wrestle with everyone who gives you shit. " They are not? << There's a difference between being trained to wrestle, and being trained to wrestle with every loudmouth going when there are alternatives available. >>In the video, the officer actually pushed her a few times, I think the officer is a reasonable position to restraint her. << I haven't been able to watch the video, but from other comments I gathered that was pushing away from the traffic. >>And if she gave him permission to push her into the traffic? or shoot her in the head? << Suicide and assisted suicide are illegal. >>That's why I say he should try to restraint her, but not with the taser. << Or he could take the route for which he has permission and doesn't risk himself and tase her.
Viral hemorrhagic fever Member	Thu Jun 11 02:38:34 'I never let anyone else taze me, but I have tasered myself to see how I would react...not really that painfull, it stings for about a second and you just collapse, the fall is probably worse than the sting.' try putting the tazer on a higher setting. 'I think the cop, you are train to restraint criminals, if they can't even do that to a old woman, that's very pathetic. ' Seems to me he restrained her pretty good. Not his fault the dumb bitch demanded he be violent about it. A lot of Grannies seem to think they should be able to do and say whatever they want to whoever they want with no repercusions just because they are Grannies. I have no sympathy for her. You want to dare a man to attack you, you deserve it when he does.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 02:43:51 It's also not like she was senile (If she was, why was she driving?), 'nor was it like she was too young to know what she was doing. We have a woman who was in the wrong, in a dangerous area who knew exactly what she was doing, knew exactly what the words she was saying meant, knew exactly what the words coming out of his mouth meant, knew exactly what she had done wrong, knew exactly why he was trying to do what he was trying to do, and who decided that she could use the fact that she was 70 and a grandmother to bully him.
Viral hemorrhagic fever Member	Thu Jun 11 02:45:52 I couldn't have put it better myself. Let this be a lesson to the next one who tries this shit
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 02:50:52 "Actually, it might. I know that here it would be you giving the person permission to do it." I'm interested... I'm going to ask my sister in law (who's a cop) how it works here. I'd think it very strange... and I'd be slighly more paranoia about walking home drunk if it was ok lol
Viral hemorrhagic fever Member	Thu Jun 11 02:52:17 I know in Canada if you dare someone to attack and they do, you will get no sympathy from the cops or the courts
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 02:58:07 I wouldn't expect sympathy... I'd expect whoever made the assault to be punished. Dared or not... it's against the law for good reason. I can't see more than mitigating circumstances in it.
Viral hemorrhagic fever Member	Thu Jun 11 02:58:50 What I mean is that if you dare someone to attack you and they do, they will never charges or convicted in Canada.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:02:12 >>I wouldn't expect sympathy... I'd expect whoever made the assault to be punished. Dared or not... it's against the law for good reason. I can't see more than mitigating circumstances in it. << Daring someone to do something is probably counting as permission in cases like this. If you give someone permission to assault you, it doesn't come under a crime so much as you being a silly bugger who should learn to keep his mouth shut.
PhunkyPhishStyle Member	Thu Jun 11 03:06:51 I think we are overlooking the fact that many 72 yr old's struggle to operate their television remotes. How do we know she 'gave permission' while actually knowing what the fuck a taser was and what it would do to her?
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:09:07 If she didn't know what it was, then it was pretty silly of her to tell him to use it. A better line from her in that case would have been something like? "Taser? What the hell is a taser?"
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 03:09:33 "Im gonna punch you in the face" "Oh yeah?, Yeah, you just try that!" == Asking someone to be punched in the face? Thats rhetorical BS. "She was using language I wouldn't expect any woman to use, let alone a 72-year-old woman." Yupp, only way to resolve that from a 72 year old woman is by electrocuting her with 50,000 volts...twice
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:13:12 >>"Im gonna punch you in the face" "Oh yeah?, Yeah, you just try that!" == Asking someone to be punched in the face? Thats rhetorical BS. << That would probably stand up in court. It's very simple, so I only want to have to say this once. If you don't want someone to do something to you, don't give them permission to do it. This shouldn't need pointing out, but apparently it does. >>Yupp, only way to resolve that from a 72 year old woman is by electrocuting her with 50,000 volts...twice << Silly woman shouldn't have given him permission to do it, then.
roland Member	Thu Jun 11 03:14:36 ""There's a difference between being trained to wrestle, and being trained to wrestle with every loudmouth going when there are alternatives available."" There are plenty of other alternatives, doesn't mean those alternatives are better. The cop is twice as big as the woman, he is in position to restraint her if need to be. He chose to use excessive force instead.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:15:22 "If you don't want someone to do something to you, don't give them permission to do it. This shouldn't need pointing out, but apparently it does." It wouldn't hold up for a lot of things. And how many times do you jokingly tell your friends all sorts of shit? If one of them decides to go ape on you, I don't think that's justified. I'll repeat my main point again: assault is illegal for very good reasons. Unless out of defence, there should be no excuses for it. I think I'd have the law on my side here in Belgium... but I'll check :)
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:18:15 Lets apply this to over situations: When someone wants to enter your property but you don't want that person to: Do you: A. Say 'Get the hell off my lawn' OR B. Say 'Sure, come on in' If you don't want someone to take one of the biscuits you're eating. Do you: A. Say 'No, get your own biscuit' OR B. Say 'Sure, have one! Would you like some coffee with it?' At one of my previous jobs, I was disconnecting a customer for being abusive. I said 'I'll give you a week to find another provider' He said 'Do whatever you want' So I disconnected him then and there... He gave me permission to do whatever I wanted. Do you see the pattern amongst these things?
cardinal JAC Member	Thu Jun 11 03:18:41 the cop is a fucking idiot who should be fired.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:19:51 So you think if someone in frustration tells you "Oh do whatever you want" you should be allowed to torture him to death? I just can't get on board with that...
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:20:00 >>There are plenty of other alternatives, doesn't mean those alternatives are better. The cop is twice as big as the woman, he is in position to restraint her if need to be. He chose to use excessive force instead. << You forget about the road next to them. One wrong step and it becomes a very bad choice, for both of them. >>It wouldn't hold up for a lot of things. And how many times do you jokingly tell your friends all sorts of shit? If one of them decides to go ape on you, I don't think that's justified. << No, but if you gave them permission, it's legal. >>I'll repeat my main point again: assault is illegal for very good reasons. Unless out of defence, there should be no excuses for it. << What about if you gave the person permission to do it?
Viral hemorrhagic fever Member	Thu Jun 11 03:20:56 I'm pretty sure this changes from country to country though Camaban. I'm sure in some countries they will still be charged even if you did give them permission
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:21:42 >>So you think if someone in frustration tells you "Oh do whatever you want" you should be allowed to torture him to death? << In this case, I did tell him I was going to do it, and he responded with the same thing. And there are probably other things to take into account with the nastier stuff (IE: How clear you made what you were about to do) But in this woman's case, both sides were being perfectly clear.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:22:11 "What about if you gave the person permission to do it?" I think not, no. Though what I do think is that situations should be assessed individually... I don't think a member of the cast of jackass can now sue the other ones for assault. Different kind of permission... it's hard to write into a proper law that sort of thing. But I think my last post makes a rather good point.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:22:56 Yeah I'm pretty sure it would never be legal here... it's just our mentality. But I will definitely ask sunday :)
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:22:58 >>I'm pretty sure this changes from country to country though Camaban. I'm sure in some countries they will still be charged even if you did give them permission << Yeah, there are going to be exceptions. But I doubt those exceptions apply to Texas, in a situation where both sides were being perfectly clear, and what they were doing and saying was being recorded.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:25:54 Well, ok, with the torture thing: What about people who torture each other for sexual pleasure? Legal or illegal? (Granted, in Texas it might be illegal, but for different reasons)
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:28:22 oh, sorry torture to death Yeah, assisted suicide and suicide is illegal in most western countries.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 03:28:47 >>"Im gonna punch you in the face" "Oh yeah?, Yeah, you just try that!" == Asking someone to be punched in the face? Thats rhetorical BS. << That would probably stand up in court." Not over here, thank god. Any moron realizes thats just an expression meaning the opposite. >>Yupp, only way to resolve that from a 72 year old woman is by electrocuting her with 50,000 volts...twice << Silly woman shouldn't have given him permission to do it, then." She didnt.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 03:30:35 "A. Say 'Get the hell off my lawn' OR B. Say 'Sure, come on in' " is nothing like a common rhetorical expression meaning the opposite.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:33:30 >>Not over here, thank god. Any moron realizes thats just an expression meaning the opposite. << Where do you live? And from what it's saying, it doesn't look like it means the opposite. >>She didnt. << â??Go ahead, Taser me,â?? she replies. "Go ahead, Taser me" In what way, shape or form is that not a request and/or permission for him to taser her? Sorry, but if you don't mean what you say in situations like this, you're a moron for saying it.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:35:48 Totally legal Camaban... though I know a judge lost his job because he was into SM some years ago in a scandal... which I thought was an outrage. I'm pretty sure anything between consenting adults is legal... but if afterwards one sues the other, you'd probably be in pretty damn tricksy legal terrain. But well there can never be a clear-cut well-working law for this shit... it'll always have to be looked at case by case. I think it's safe to say though that granny didn't actually want to get tasered and that copper-boy should've been smart enough to know that and see that there was no need to.
roland Member	Thu Jun 11 03:38:02 His job is to assess the condition and apply the appropriate action to the situation. What the woman told him to do should not mattered at all. If tasering her is the best course of action, the cop doesn't need her permission to taser her. That line of argument is BS.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 03:42:23 "Oh yeah? Go ahead and taser me" is an expression of defiance in the face of a threat of something any retard can work out she doesnt want done, from a weak 72 year old woman to an adult male. Fuck common sense and what everyone knows is actually happening there, lets get a lawyer to contrive and misconstrue the intent of the law of the land and hide behind a letter of the law loophole. Its like basing an argument on someones typo. Its ridiculous - and cowardly.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 03:43:48 If I go up to a cop and say: Hey, Im feeling depressed lately, could you please shoot me, you think the law would allow him to shoot me?
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:44:00 >>Totally legal Camaban... though I know a judge lost his job because he was into SM some years ago in a scandal... which I thought was an outrage. I'm pretty sure anything between consenting adults is legal... but if afterwards one sues the other, you'd probably be in pretty damn tricksy legal terrain. << Unless they had some recording of that they agreed to do that act, in which case it would probably be the complainants problem >>I think it's safe to say though that granny didn't actually want to get tasered and that copper-boy should've been smart enough to know that and see that there was no need to. << I wasn't aware that in order to give someone permission to do something, you also had to want them to do it. Although if the granny didn't want to be tasered, I'd have thought (hoped, whatever) that she'd be smart enough to not give him permission to do it.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:47:22 >>His job is to assess the condition and apply the appropriate action to the situation. What the woman told him to do should not mattered at all. If tasering her is the best course of action, the cop doesn't need her permission to taser her. That line of argument is BS. << And based on his assessment of the situation (He was the person on the ground, not criticising the decision later) that was the best course of action. >>"Oh yeah? Go ahead and taser me" is an expression of defiance in the face of a threat of something any retard can work out she doesnt want done, from a weak 72 year old woman to an adult male. Fuck common sense and what everyone knows is actually happening there, lets get a lawyer to contrive and misconstrue the intent of the law of the land and hide behind a letter of the law loophole. Its like basing an argument on someones typo. Its ridiculous - and cowardly. << It's also permission. No two ways about it. It's clear, easily-understandable, recorded permission. >>If I go up to a cop and say: Hey, Im feeling depressed lately, could you please shoot me, you think the law would allow him to shoot me? << That depends on what the law said about his use of firearms. It also depends on where he was shooting. For the third time, suicide and assisted suicide are illegal. If you told him to shoot you in the foot though, (and it was recorded) then it would probably be your problem.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:47:32 "I wasn't aware that in order to give someone permission to do something, you also had to want them to do it." If what you ask them to do is illegal to begin with, it usually doesn't even matter. You're not allowed to do illegal things to people, even with their permission. SM is a tricky issue though... I think the judge probably lost his job because it might actually be illegal in the eyes of our law (has been quite a while ago, don't remember the details). In any case: Intent of the law > letter of the law Which means that consentual SM-sex is ok and assaulting someone who reacted unwisely to a threat isn't.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:48:01 "For the third time, suicide and assisted suicide are illegal." As is assault.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:51:43 >>If what you ask them to do is illegal to begin with, it usually doesn't even matter. You're not allowed to do illegal things to people, even with their permission. << Yes, but legality can change based on permission. With assault, what is boxing if not two people assaulting each other within clearly defined rules that both parties have agreed upon? >>SM is a tricky issue though... I think the judge probably lost his job because it might actually be illegal in the eyes of our law (has been quite a while ago, don't remember the details). << That would probably depend on which actual law was being broken though. Or even if the judge had professional rules of conduct by which he had to abide to keep his job. >>In any case: Intent of the law > letter of the law Which means that consentual SM-sex is ok and assaulting someone who reacted unwisely to a threat isn't. << And the intent of the relevant law is to make it legal for someone to do something for which that person has been given permission. For instance: If I don't give someone permission to take my TV and that person takes my TV, that's theft. If I do give that person permission, it's not theft.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:53:15 And you don't see the difference between giving someone permission to take your tv or not and reacting to a threat unwisely? Because if you really don't, I'm not going to continue this (otherwise interesting) discussion.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:53:28 Here's another question: Is being punched in the face by someone to whom you have given permission to punch you in the face still assault? "Law. an unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner." If the permission changes it to a lawful physical attack, going by that, it's no longer assault.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:55:38 >>And you don't see the difference between giving someone permission to take your tv or not and reacting to a threat unwisely? Because if you really don't, I'm not going to continue this (otherwise interesting) discussion. << I do, however, in my personal experience, reacting to a threat unwisely in that manner is still legally giving permission. When I was assaulted in my teens and complained to the police, one of their first questions was "Did you say anything like 'Go on, hit me'? and after I answered no, they explained that if I had, I had given them permission and there was nothing I could do.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 03:56:08 Obviously, my experience was under Australian law, but I doubt that American law is significantly different in this regard.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 03:57:55 Well that may be the law of your country, but I sure hope (and think) it isn't ours. I mean shit... how many legal assault could one get away with just going up to people in bars and start picking fights with them until they give them a sentence that could be interpreted as permission? That's plain stupid imo...
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 04:00:50 It might be stupid, but permission is permission. Stupid is giving someone permission to do something that you'll regret. Unless the act is illegal with or without permission (IE: Suicide) And while it's the law here, I've never heard of anyone doing what you just described. (At least, I've never heard of a noteworthy rash of them)
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 04:02:21 With what you're describing with people going around and using that to pick up fights, there's a good chance that the actions of the person going around harassing people like that would be a form of assault or something along those lines in the first place.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 04:04:49 But you think it should be legal to go around bars and ask drunks things like "Hey, how would you like a fist in your face?", which can't be considered a threat as it is just an "honest question", until one tells you something like "Why don't you try and find out?" or whatever... Do it with a crew and film it all... good times, good times. Legal too. If you think that's how the law should be, I really can't agree with you.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 04:05:34 Well since you're being all 'letter of the law', you just gotta be smart about your taunting.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 04:08:31 In that case, the person is drunk and therefore has diminished responsibility/capability to give permission. For the same reason, if you have sex with a blind drunk woman, don't be surprised if you find you've been charged with rape the next day. If this woman was drunk or otherwise inebriated, then that's one more reason she deserved what was coming (considering she was driving)
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 04:09:26 >>Well since you're being all 'letter of the law', you just gotta be smart about your taunting. << True, but the people who are both smart enough to think of that, and enjoy going to pubs to pick fights are probably few and far between.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 04:09:47 "In that case, the person is drunk and therefore has diminished responsibility/capability to give permission." So I can give away TV's whilst drunk and have people charged for theft? :p
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 04:12:48 Also of course you can just pick fights with people who look like they would be susceptible to taunting... drunks aren't required. Point is you could start a gang that carries around a camera or two and legally taunt people until they give you permission to hit 'em. That's stupid... and much more so than saying "Why don't you go ahead and try me?" or something like that to some asshole.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 04:13:01 >>So I can give away TV's whilst drunk and have people charged for theft? :p << If you go up to someone and say 'Buddy, do you want to take my TV?' probably not. If someone sees that you're blind drunk, takes you home and says 'In exchange for taking you home, can I have your TV?' probably.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 04:16:47 >>Also of course you can just pick fights with people who look like they would be susceptible to taunting... drunks aren't required. << This is true. In that case, the person on the receiving end would want to learn to control what he says. >>Point is you could start a gang that carries around a camera or two and legally taunt people until they give you permission to hit 'em. << Possibly, I'm not sure on that one. However, again, the tauntings themselves could probably come under some form of assault. >>That's stupid... and much more so than saying "Why don't you go ahead and try me?" or something like that to some asshole. << Again it's very simple: Don't give people permission to do what you would come to regret. However again, I suspect the people who would think of things like that are more likely to simply take up boxing.
roland Member	Thu Jun 11 04:34:50 "And based on his assessment of the situation (He was the person on the ground, not criticising the decision later) that was the best course of action. " However, his decision appears to be wrong. "It's also permission. No two ways about it. It's clear, easily-understandable, recorded permission." No, that was not a permission. it was a dare, she did not expect the cop to do it. Regardless, the officer has no obligation to follow that dare.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 04:48:48 >>However, his decision appears to be wrong. << Based off the opinion of someone who wasn't there. >>No, that was not a permission. it was a dare, she did not expect the cop to do it. Regardless, the officer has no obligation to follow that dare. << In what way is "Go ahead and do X" not either permission or a request to do X? The language couldn't be clearer. And the officer had an obligation to do something. Again, the circle comes back to them being next to a road with traffic going at high speed beside them. A mis-step would have made them both sorry. He could have overpowered her and cuffed her (making himself open to be gotten by whatever she might have been carrying) but that opened up the door to have something nastier happen. And again we come back to what I posted a long time ago: We have a woman who was in the wrong, in a dangerous area who knew exactly what she was doing, knew exactly what the words she was saying meant, knew exactly what the words coming out of his mouth meant, knew exactly what she had done wrong, knew exactly why he was trying to do what he was trying to do, and who decided that she could use the fact that she was 70 and a grandmother to bully him.
roland Member	Thu Jun 11 05:19:29 "Based off the opinion of someone who wasn't there." So? "In what way is "Go ahead and do X" not either permission or a request to do X? " In the context that she is doing that to taunt the officer and not really requesting the officer to do anything. That is not a permission. "And the officer had an obligation to do something." That something is about obliged to her dare. As you said so earlier he is not obliged to assist her suicide, or kill her. "Again, the circle comes back to them being next to a road with traffic going at high speed beside them. A mis-step would have made them both sorry." And tasering a old lady is not a risk? It shouldn't be use so casually.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 06:43:32 Ridiculous. Hiding behind really weak rhetorical excuses that in no way reflect the actual reality of the situation.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 06:44:31 "I'm going to hit you in the face" "Oh yeah? You just try that" "See everyone? he asked me to hit him!"
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 06:45:23 Thats the kind of dumb shit a stupid 10 year old bully might try to pull, for which a quick clip on the ear is the answer.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 06:51:06 >>So? << So, he was in a better position to judge the situation than you were. >>In the context that she is doing that to taunt the officer and not really requesting the officer to do anything. That is not a permission. << In the context that she said "Go ahead, taser me" she is giving permission. I'm not sure what language you're thinking of, but in the English language, such words would be either permission or a request to taser her. There is simply no other interpretation that fits in with the words that came out of her mouth. >>That something is about obliged to her dare. As you said so earlier he is not obliged to assist her suicide, or kill her. << *sigh* No, he wasn't obliged to taser her because she dared him to (or gave him permission to) but he was obliged to do something to deal with the situation. After warning her of what he would do multiple times in a fashion that she clearly heard and understood, he did what he felt to be the best course of action. Yes, he could have wrestled her to the ground and cuffed her, during which she could have either had broken bones, serious bruises, or they could have stepped out into traffic. He would also have been risking her having anything from pepper spray to a gun on her person. >>And tasering a old lady is not a risk? It shouldn't be use so casually. << It's less of a risk than being hit by a car, as one viable possible alternative involved(if they got into a struggle) And it wasn't done casually, it was done after repeated warnings of what exactly was going to happen in a situation in which a struggle could have easily been lethal to either of them.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 06:54:26 "So, he was in a better position to judge the situation than you were." So cops when able to get someone without witnesses are basically above the law? Unless granny was packing heat or something, I can not imagine a situation in which tazing her should be excusable.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 06:55:16 >>Ridiculous. Hiding behind really weak rhetorical excuses that in no way reflect the actual reality of the situation. << Actually it completely reflects the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation IS that she gave clear permission to him to taser her, and that he warned multiple times that she would get tased. What you don't like amounts to nothing more than "wah wah wah, I don't like this" >>"I'm going to hit you in the face" "Oh yeah? You just try that" "See everyone? he asked me to hit him!" << Yep. Don't give people permission to do things you don't want them to. It's common sense (something that this old bat seems to completely lack) >>Thats the kind of dumb shit a stupid 10 year old bully might try to pull, for which a quick clip on the ear is the answer. << It's called giving someone permission to do something. Sorry if that's a difficult concept for you. I can't help that.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 07:32:22 Actually it completely does not reflect the reality of the situation. Its so stupid, its at the level of "Mommy, mommy, peter hit me!" "Peter, why did you hit her?" "she asked me to!" "Sally, did you ask him to hit you?" "Mommy, he said he was going to hit me me, so I said, oh yeah, just you try!" "Peter, go to your room and stop being so silly" *slaps peter over the head for being a smart alec*
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 07:40:15 "But she asked me to!" "Peter, stop answering back. You know perfectly well you dont hit your lil sister!" *wallops his backside with a newspaper*
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 07:40:34 "It's called giving someone permission to do something. Sorry if that's a difficult concept for you. I can't help that." I get the feeling responsibility and common sense are concepts both you and this cop are having difficulties with.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 07:47:53 Camaban: "watch it or Ill delete every post you make" Real Fred: "Oh yeah? Just you try" Camaban: *deletes every post RF makes* Board: "wtf???" Camaban: "RF asked me to!" Board: "fucking sack camaban for being a moron or we all leave"
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 07:51:44 >>So cops when able to get someone without witnesses are basically above the law? << Depends. Given that our legal systems go on a presumption of innocence, if there's no evidence he did something wrong (or it's his word against hers) his will win. But there was a witness. The video camera, which he was perfectly aware was rolling. >>Unless granny was packing heat or something, I can not imagine a situation in which tazing her should be excusable. << How many times does it have to be repeated that this was happening on a roadside close to traffic going at high speed? Plus, I don't see how he knew what she might or might not be packing. This is the 6th time I've mentioned it. >>I get the feeling responsibility and common sense are concepts both you and this cop are having difficulties with. << Either you don't understand the concept of what a ton of metal traveling at high speed can do to someone who gets in front of it, or the pot is calling the silver kettle black.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 07:53:24 Oh, I get it. Not only did he taze her because she wanted to be tazed, he also did it to save her life. "Camaban, go to your room and stop being so silly." *slaps Camaban over the head for being a smart alec*
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 07:58:10 >>Camaban: "watch it or Ill delete every post you make" Real Fred: "Oh yeah? Just you try" Camaban: *deletes every post RF makes* Board: "wtf???" Camaban: "RF asked me to!" Board: "fucking sack camaban for being a moron or we all leave" << This board isn't a court. 'nor does it operate on any but the loosest recognised legal principles. 'nor does public opinion. However, if it was taken to an actual court, then Fred would get the equivalent of being called an idiot, and I'd walk out without a blemish against me.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 07:59:11 Depends on the court.
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 08:00:09 "Either you don't understand the concept of what a ton of metal traveling at high speed can do to someone who gets in front of it, or the pot is calling the silver kettle black." Dude... how does tazing an old woman make you impervious to a ton of metal?!? What kind of rediculous strawman argument is this?
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 08:01:25 My main point is that there were numerous sollutions that didn't include violence... write her down... know where to find her. Revoke her license or something. Tazing her did not solve anything and was utterly uncalled for.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 08:01:53 >>Oh, I get it. Not only did he taze her because she wanted to be tazed, he also did it to save her life. << Dear God you're a moron. Not to save her life. However, any physical scuffle (as has been given as the alternative option) could have easily killed the pair of them. Anyhow, I'm back in about 12-20 hours time.
HOer Member	Thu Jun 11 08:07:35 Wow.
werewolf dictator Member	Thu Jun 11 08:56:42 â??You gonna shove me?â?? Ms Winkfein tells Const Bieze in the video. â??You gonna shove a 72-year-old woman?â?? â??Step back or Iâ??m going to Taser you,â?? she is told. â??Go ahead, Taser me,â?? she replies. that isnt permission.. it is defiance at perceived injustice with admission of no ability at successful physical resistance.. it is like if racists out side store say ``we wont let you go in our territory'' and pull gun on unarmed minority.. and minority says ``go ahead and shoot me i go in''.. and racists shoot.. or if china person in front of tank at tianenmen had said "run over me if you like i wont move".. which is what his actions are saying.. they cant run over him and claim they get permission from him.. may be old lady is wrong one and she is wrong in perceiving injustice.. but claims she gives permission is still not correct..
Nekran Member	Thu Jun 11 10:21:06 Another very good argument indeed... kind of dissapointed in myself for not having composed it myself.
eds Member	Thu Jun 11 11:22:44 Tasers should be the second last resort, the last being their gun. These fucking lazy pigs use their taser before they ever try to physically restrain or cuff people. Oh noes my pretty uniform might get dirty! Yes, it increases the chance the officer might get a booboo, but then that risk is part of their fucking job. The number of taser-related deaths speaks for itself.
ehcks Member	Thu Jun 11 12:17:03 Tasering her was the best possible course of action. The fact that she knowingly asked for it just means anyone arguing against the cop is a moron. "Tasers should be the second last resort, the last being their gun." Why? Most of the time, they're less dangerous than physical contact. This was one of those times.
Trolly McCool Member	Thu Jun 11 12:19:25 That granny is Hot Rods daughter.
Truther Member	Thu Jun 11 12:20:23 ^Government shrill who thinks 90 year old great-grandmothers are dangerous terrorists who are too dangerous for a 25 year old cop to handle without a weapon.
Trolly McCool Member	Thu Jun 11 12:21:06 ^ Hot Rod
ehcks Member	Thu Jun 11 12:26:25 When someone is in violation of the law, and getting argumentative and even physically violent with a police officer, it doesn't matter their age, or their physical or mental capacity. They need to be stopped. Tasers do that, and they do it well. And I personally would rather be tased than physically contained, or even pepper sprayed.
eds Member	Thu Jun 11 12:48:54 "Tasering her was the best possible course of action. The fact that she knowingly asked for it just means anyone arguing against the cop is a moron. " She may have deserved something for her incessant yapping, but not a taser which has in so many cases resulted in death. "Why? Most of the time, they're less dangerous than physical contact. This was one of those times." How many deaths do we see each year from officers physically cuffing a suspect? I didn't watch the video (at work) but the usual MO is that the officer doesn't even try to put cuffs around the suspect before drawing the taser. If the suspect is physically violent, then by all means taser. I am somehow doubting granny was throwing punches.
Camaban Moderator	Thu Jun 11 23:28:57 >>that isnt permission.. it is defiance at perceived injustice with admission of no ability at successful physical resistance.. << No, you'll find that those words are normally either an instruction or permission. The woman being a moron doesn't change the nature of the English language. >>it is like if racists out side store say ``we wont let you go in our territory'' and pull gun on unarmed minority.. and minority says ``go ahead and shoot me i go in''.. and racists shoot.. << This would depend on the trespassing laws in the area that you're talking about. Again though (things seem to be repeatedly ignored here... hm...) suicide and assisted suicide are normally illegal. >>or if china person in front of tank at tianenmen had said "run over me if you like i wont move".. which is what his actions are saying.. they cant run over him and claim they get permission from him.. << Unlike China, the US has the rule of law. They're completely different legal environments. (In the case of Tian'anmen, you'd have found that the tank driver already had all the permission he needed) >>may be old lady is wrong one and she is wrong in perceiving injustice.. but claims she gives permission is still not correct.. << So on the one hand, we have the fact that those words ARE either an instruction of permission in the English language, and on the other hand we have... your opinion. hmm. If you don't mean what you say, don't say it. Again, this is something that shouldn't need to be explained. >>Another very good argument indeed... kind of dissapointed in myself for not having composed it myself. << I wouldn't be. >>Tasers should be the second last resort, the last being their gun. These fucking lazy pigs use their taser before they ever try to physically restrain or cuff people. Oh noes my pretty uniform might get dirty! Yes, it increases the chance the officer might get a booboo, but then that risk is part of their fucking job. The number of taser-related deaths speaks for itself. << And once again, the fact that this was being done right next to traffic going at high speed is ignored. Completely. Can someone please explain to me what about the consequences of a mixture of close-proximity high speed traffic, and the possibility of a mis-step during a scuffle is so difficult to understand? >>"Tasering her was the best possible course of action. The fact that she knowingly asked for it just means anyone arguing against the cop is a moron. " She may have deserved something for her incessant yapping, but not a taser which has in so many cases resulted in death. "Why? Most of the time, they're less dangerous than physical contact. This was one of those times." How many deaths do we see each year from officers physically cuffing a suspect? I didn't watch the video (at work) but the usual MO is that the officer doesn't even try to put cuffs around the suspect before drawing the taser. If the suspect is physically violent, then by all means taser. I am somehow doubting granny was throwing punches. << *sigh* how many people are killed in road accidents each year? Normally, that would be an irrelevant question. In this case, however, it's a highly relevant question that every bugger who's arguing in favour of the mad old bat (Who AGAIN knew exactly what she was doing, exactly what she had done, exactly what the police officer was trying to do, exactly what the police officer meant when he threatened to tase her if she didn't calm down, and exactly what the words coming out of her meant) seems determined to ignore.
roland Member	Thu Jun 11 23:31:41 "No, you'll find that those words are normally either an instruction or permission. The woman being a moron doesn't change the nature of the English language. " No, but if you apply the context to the situation, it has a different meaning.
Camaban Moderator	Fri Jun 12 00:18:11 >>No, but if you apply the context to the situation, it has a different meaning. << No, it has an additional meaning. IE: That the woman is a moron. Other than that, the meaning is the same.
	show deleted posts