Tasered mom: ‘I posed no threat’

[marmot]

He obviously should have responded with a clean-cut appearance and more grace.

The deaf man, btw, was a clean-cut individual.

This is now the standard by which we assess the viability of police torture of citizens? That's a pretty low bar.

I'm absolutely outraged by this!

Just in case you need a phrase for insincerely expressing your distress over some case in which the utterly predictable harm done to an innocent person as a result of the act-first think-later, no-strikes-and-you're-out, presumed-guilty standard you constantly preach wasn't severe enough to merit outrage, I suggest:

It's a disgrace!

Please do not misread or misconstrue my positions. The "clean-cut" comment is NOT how I discern for myself an individual's character or what type of person they are or how they should be treated. This was a supposition I made on behalf of how certain cops discern (i.e., categorize) and subsequently treat "types" of persons, in response to a question Sounder had asked above.

And, c2w. Don't confuse or misrepresent my positions. There are enormously huge differences between the presumed innocence of this mentally-challenged deaf man who got tased, and the blatant criminality of a Jackson who violently assaults a police officer and then gets tased. Two very different situations.

I have had ridiculous good fortune with cops all my life. So much so that I asked a ’friend’ to ask a state police dispatcher friend if they had code designations for various types of people. I did not get any detail from my friend beyond yes, and will try to find out more.

I think it breaks down like this> Ultimately, if you're respectful and polite, and cooperate with the police as they are doing their job - you'll get the same kind of courtesy - and maybe even an extra measure of grace back. This especially works with highly temperamental cops: grace begets grace, and anger begets anger. It is never a good idea to challenge a cop in anger.

Also, if you're overly obsequious - this causes suspicion. And cops are usually pretty good at reading people, at judging character. They have to assess someone in the matter of seconds, and everything factors into their assessment - from the type and condition of the vehicle (including bumper stickers) to a person's clothing and haircut; From the lines on a persons face and their immediate behavior, to observing eye contact and listening to how they speak - the sounds and tones in one's voice carries volumes of information.

A clean-cut, well-mannered character usually finds good fortune in a police encounter. I don't think it really matters how much money, authority or status a person has in the world - I think it breaks down to grace being offered to the humble, and the insolent get broken.

[marmot]

you do know that there are truly ancient methods for the nonlethal subduing of perps that do not involve electricity or gunpowder, right?

Ok, I have some ideas, but do tell.

And cops are usually pretty good at reading people, at judging character.

However, this:

COPS TASER MENTALLY CHALLENGED DEAF MAN, WHILE USING TOILET

is an example of (assumedely bad) cops who didn't assess the situation properly. (Notice I qualified my thoughts with a - "usually")

[OP ED]

you do know that there are truly ancient methods for the nonlethal subduing of perps that do not involve electricity or gunpowder, right?

Ok, I have some ideas, but do tell.

"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day." (Gen 32:24)

like i said, "ancient".

esp considering the cops had him 2:1, then 3:1. plus it seems he was hurt bad enough from their "subduing" him in the swamp, or a combo of this and the tasershock, that it appears he never had an opportunity to give a statement before he died. strange...

though the extent of his injuries was unclear, police said.

why?

And cops are usually pretty good at reading people, at judging character.

However, this:

COPS TASER MENTALLY CHALLENGED DEAF MAN, WHILE USING TOILET

is an example of (assumedely bad) cops who didn't assess the situation properly. (Notice I qualified my thoughts with a - "usually")

it is your qualification that i take issue with. Even a cursory examination of modern [and historical] police behavior reveals an increasing pattern of power abuse and disregard for what were once recognized human rights.

[OP ED]

In 1982, the federal government funded a "Police Services Study" in which over 12,000 randomly selected citizens were interviewed in three metropolitan areas. The study found that 13 percent of those surveyed claimed to have been victims of police brutality the previous year. Yet only 30 percent of those who acknowledged such brutality filed formal complaints.[15] A 1998 Human Rights Watch report stated that in all 14 precincts which it examined, the process of filing a complaint was "unnecessarily difficult and often intimidating."[16]

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14614pub19971201.html


http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/repor ... uspo20.htm

[Sounder]

OP ED wrote...

Even a cursory examination of modern [and historical] police behavior reveals an increasing pattern of power abuse and disregard for what were once recognized human rights.

Yeah, those cops of the inquisition were so reasonable. (Point being that the example for the torturers was set several pay grades above them.)

There are people with character defects in all lines of work.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles ... owing-gun/

Cops are lots less fucked up than the larger society is.

[OP ED]

Cops are lots less fucked up than the larger society is.

beg to differ. and so do the statistics.

[Sounder]

I guess we have different opinions as to how fucked up the larger society is in toto. I mean it’s not like big pharma, Monsanto, derivative traders, corp. boardrooms, the Fed and other big time fucktards provide us with video documentation of their crimes.

(Although I suppose it’s not a crime if they pay enough money to make their activities legal.)

They kill lots more people, and somehow I doubt that they collate the statistics for our benefit.

[OP ED]

I guess we have different opinions as to how fucked up the larger society is in toto.

perhaps so. i think its pretty fucked up. however, it also includes, for example, you and me and our fellow board members and our families and friends, etc as part of the group [everyone] and as such i stand by my statement based on the simple fact that Police officers, per statistics, aren't less likely to commit [almost] any crimes, and are in fact, much more likely than an "average" person [a non-cop chosen at random] to commit certain crimes.

numbers on this are fairly solid. this isn't to say that i blame them for all society's ills, just that i have been liberated from any remaining notion that they represent "better" people on average.

[Sounder]

Agreed, when compaired to 'average' folk they commit more crime. But still, crimes of non-average folk do more damage to society.

[compared2what?]

And, c2w. Don't confuse or misrepresent my positions.

I didn't. And you have my word for it that I'll continue not to do so.

You're welcome!

[barracuda]

But still, crimes of non-average folk do more damage to society.

I'm not ashamed to say that I'm proud to number myself as amongst that particular demographic. Sans abash.

[OP ED]

Agreed, when compaired to 'average' folk they commit more crime. But still, crimes of non-average folk do more damage to society.

arguable. see, with a corrupt "criminal justice system" from, statistically, top to bottom, our hopes of having larger scale criminals prosecuted diminsh drastically.

given their overall lower access to greater regional political power/support, i.e. their vulnerabilities to litigations and activisms, efforts should be increasingly focused on law enoforcement agencies and the greater system, as a necessary prerequisite towards larger political upheaval.

have to start the fishfry somewhere.