[Cody Dawg]

Okay, so some of you know that I think that the cops down here in Florida are out of control when it comes to shooting people with guns or using stun guns.

Here is yet another example of gross abuse of using a stun gun: Cops taser a 92-year old man.

Cops taser 92-year old man.

Now the old guy was reportedly beating on his nursing home roommate with a cane, but who here really believes that a cop - who supposedly has to pass a fitness test - couldn't subdue that old man without using a stun gun?



Up until a few years ago cops were able to handle those situations just fine. Now all of a sudden they need to use a stun gun?

Unbelievable.

[Ghoser777]

I don't know much about this area, but what happens if you break the guys arm trying to subdue him "the old fashioned way"? Would the cops be liable for the injuries?

[Cody Dawg]

How did they do it all of these years up until now?

What happens when the guy has a heart attack or his heart stops from being shocked?

They shocked the guy in the face, by the way.

[Tenacious Dyl]

He was also attacking another senior citizen, and then hit staff. There are more than 290 million people in this country. Injustice isn't a senior beating up a senior, and then getting zapped for it. *GASP* consequences! Injustice would be a little more deep than this, and a little more profound. Some old people got in a fight, and the police stopped it. Get over it. The sky isn't falling.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tenacious Dyl

He was also attacking another senior citizen, and then hit staff. There are more than 290 million people in this country. Injustice isn't a senior beating up a senior, and then getting zapped for it. *GASP* consequences! Injustice would be a little more deep than this, and a little more profound. Some old people got in a fight, and the police stopped it. Get over it. The sky isn't falling.

He was 92....

[Peter]

Originally Posted by Kevin

He was 92....

he was attacking people...

[Ghoser777]

When Chuck Norris is 92, you better have more than a stun gun to sedate him!

[zmcgill]

For each taping of Walker, Texas Ranger, Chuck Norris was given 100 times the lethal dose of elephant tranquilizers to try and reduce the deaths of stuntmen.

[goMac]

Has Cody ever actually seen a cain? I can't imagine being beaten by one would be all that pretty.

[as2]

Chuck Norris has two speeds... Walk and Kill.

Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting, as it implies he might fail. Chuck Norris goes KILLING!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

He was 92....

Some people that age are in better shape than I am. Not many, yeah, but it's not a guarantee of weakness. He's clearly not too decrepit to scare people into calling the cops, and he did have a weapon.

[baw]

Armchair Police Chiefs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Peter

he was attacking people...

He was 92....

BTW had Cody posted about how she thought he DESERVED such a treatment I think some responses would be a bit different.

OMG!1 YOU SAVAGE11 And the like.

[Chuckit]

What do you suppose the response would be if Cody had just not started a thread to weigh in about something we don't know about at all?

[Kevin]

Well what if everyone stopped? (esp in the PL)
Or how about Cody stops being singled out.

The latter would be a bit less hypocritical.

[Chuckit]

But then what would the Global Anti-Cody Conspiracy do?

[Cody Dawg]

I guess you'd be out of your non-job, e.g., unemployed.

[Doofy]

News just in: 92 year-old man tasered after beating his roomie with a stick. Police suspect his laydeez were bigging him up for the attack.

[Kevin]

[macroy]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

How did they do it all of these years up until now?

What happens when the guy has a heart attack or his heart stops from being shocked?

They shocked the guy in the face, by the way.

How did you come to the conclusion that he was tased in the face? I only saw the article you posted.. and it didn't mention that at all.

Perhaps in the old days they would've just shot him with a gun? or maybe gang tackled him? or clubed him? Not sure what's worse.... getting tased or have 3-5 200lb cops tackle and beat the hell out of me with asps.

[Ghoser777]

Part of the article mentions trauma to his head and face. I guess the injuries could be from falling after being tased.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by goMac

Has Cody ever actually seen a cain? I can't imagine being beaten by one would be all that pretty.

You can say that again! Just ask Abel over there!

*ba-dum ching!*

greg


Now Playing: Jamiroquai – Manifest Destiny

[macroy]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Part of the article mentions trauma to his head and face. I guess the injuries could be from falling after being tased.

hehe... actually, the man that was treated for trauma to his head and face what the dude that was beaten with the cane - Not the 92 year old that got zapped. At least thats how I read it.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macroy

hehe... actually, the man that was treated for trauma to his head and face what the dude that was beaten with the cane - Not the 92 year old that got zapped. At least thats how I read it.

It's not how I read it at first, but it is how it reads.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

Part of the article mentions trauma to his head and face. I guess the injuries could be from falling after being tased.

No, his roommate is the one in the hospital for head/face trauma.

[Chuckit]

Yeah, it says Casanova (the roommate) was taken to the hospital. It just says Holcombe was Tasered and arrested.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by as2

Chuck Norris has two speeds... Walk and Kill.

Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting, as it implies he might fail. Chuck Norris goes KILLING!

LOL

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by macroy

How did you come to the conclusion that he was tased in the face? I only saw the article you posted.. and it didn't mention that at all.

Perhaps in the old days they would've just shot him with a gun? or maybe gang tackled him? or clubed him? Not sure what's worse.... getting tased or have 3-5 200lb cops tackle and beat the hell out of me with asps.

Almost all law enforcement agencies have a shoot-to-kill policy. The reason for this is that they don't want their officers to use force unless it's absolutely necessary - that is, don't use force until it's absolutely necessary to kill someone outright. The growing popularity of "less than lethal" weapons with law enforcement officials is a double-edged sword. Weapons can be used in a much wider range of incidents, and the consequences for misuse of a less than lethal weapon are much less than for a lethal weapon.

[memory-minus]

[meelk]

If you are attacking someone else and a cop says STOP DOING IT, and you dont, you damn well deserve it.
Screw him, he could have been 152 and should have been tasered.

[ghporter]

You can't subdue a person who's swinging a deadly weapon all around. He'd already beaten his 81 year old roommate (the roomate's the one with the head and face injuries) and was going after a staff member.

There's an issue here about immediately taking action to prevent the attacker from hurting more people. There's also the issue of, as mentioned earlier, the deputy being sued if his normal restraint moves did harm to the old guy because he's old and brittle. Would YOU wade in around an aluminum cane swinging all over the place, even if the guy swinging it was old? Thought not.

Cody, not every time a cop uses a stun gun or Taser is the cop in the wrong. Are you going to ask us what we think when the headline is "Cop Tasers Drug Crazed Axe Wielder?"

[zmcgill]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Cody, not every time a cop uses a stun gun or Taser is the cop in the wrong. Are you going to ask us what we think when the headline is "Cop Tasers Drug Crazed Axe Wielder?"

lol

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by meelk

If you are attacking someone else and a cop says STOP DOING IT, and you dont, you damn well deserve it.
Screw him, he could have been 152 and should have been tasered.

Wow. Just wow.

Had Cody said this, she would be called a blood thirsty wench no doubt.

But since a guy said it...

[parsec_kadets]

The Pasco County Sheriff's Office said its deputies used a stun gun to subdue a 92-year-old nursing home resident Thursday after the man severely beat his 81-year-old roommate with an aluminum cane.

...

Holcolmbe was taken into custody under the state's Baker Act, meaning deputies deemed him a threat to himself or others.

I find it interesting that you suggest that a man who is capable of severely beating another man is so feable that the police should handle him with kid gloves. I also find it interesting that a man who is deemed to be a threat to himself and others somehow deserves special treatment in any way when compared to anyone else who is a threat to themselves or others. This guy is obviously capable of harming others, and we shouldn't expect our police officers to subject themselves to unneccisary risk. Don't forget that police officers actually have two duties. The first is to protect the community they serve. But the second is to return home to their families safely.

Cody, while I'm not familiar with the other threads you may have started in regards to the use of excessive force by police, I do agree with you that there is the potential with tazers for misuse. It would be entirely possible for the tazer to become a crutch, used in instances where less drastic measures would have resolved the situation just as effectively. And that's the key in this instance. Would another method to subdue the man have been less drastic and been safer for both the suspect and the arresting officer(s)? Honestly, this report is short on details so I can't be sure, but I suspect that the answer is no.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wow. Just wow.

Had Cody said this, she would be called a blood thirsty wench no doubt.

But since a guy said it...

Once more, you present conjecture based on your negative opinions of others as fact.

[production_coordinator]

My 2¢

We have the technology to subdue the person without injuring a police officer and (hopefully) not injuring the person. The "old fashioned way" opens itself up for more injury.

My sister works in a nursing home... the fact that the person is 92 has no bearing on my opinion. He had a potentially dangerous stick (cane).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Once more, you present conjecture based on your negative opinions of others as fact.

Correct I was wrong in making such statement as factual. It was only my opinion.

I will be however bookmarking it for when the next time Cody gets attacked for having no sympathy.

[production_coordinator]

I don't know why people insist on focusing on the fact that they guy was 92. Regardless of the age, a stun gun was the appropriate way of controlling the assailant.

Why should we jeopardize a police officer?

[ReggieX]

Oh, look, Chuck Norris quotes. How cool.

[nredman]

maybe the guy was naked and his old balls were exposed - i'd tas him too

[Kevin]

http://www.aclunc.org/opinion/050821-tasers.html

Since their debut in 2000, Taser stun guns have been billed as the weapon of choice for police. They've been touted as an easy way to subdue an uncooperative suspect without firing lethal bullets. But the fact is, dozens of people have died in incidents involving Tasers, including a San Jose man who was pepper-sprayed, beaten and jolted this month during a struggle with police.

San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis says stun-gun use in his department has decreased as officers have learned the limitations of the weapon. That's good news.

What's worrying is the department's lax stun-gun policy sets few if any limits on how Tasers can be used. Stun guns could potentially be fired at demonstrators at a political rally, motorists arguing about traffic tickets, homeless people who happen to be in the way, or rowdy teenagers.

Indeed, the department has actually deleted restrictions that once prohibited using stun guns against "restrained, unconscious, non-combative, or otherwise incapacitated persons."

That's scary, because there have been more than 140 post-stun-gun deaths nationwide. Of course, we don't know if Tasers were the cause of death in every incident, but the statistics strongly indicate that, under certain circumstances, these stun guns are simply not the safe, non-lethal weapon that their manufacturer once claimed.

That's why the San Jose Police Department should only use stun guns as an alternative to deadly force. At a minimum, the department should clearly state when stun guns can and can't be used.

The old policy is a good start. Until those guidelines were dropped in June 2004, San Jose police officers could use stun guns only to "incapacitate assaultive or physically resisting persons," as a "defensive weapon," or to prevent someone from being "seriously injured."

San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis says these rules were eliminated because new department policies rely on the individual officer to decide what level of force is appropriate for a situation.

However, the department restricts the use of other law enforcement tools and weapons in its policies. One example is the "WRAP restraint device," whose straps are designed to immobilize a suspect's legs. The department's policy states that the "Use of a WRAP restraint is prohibited on subjects who are not physically violent or physically resisting," which raises the question, if a device made of nylon, Velcro, and steel is considered dangerous enough to be regulated, why not the stun gun?

Here's how the San Jose Police Department could take some reassuring steps to reform its lax Stun-gun policy:

Someone who is already unconscious or handcuffed should not be shocked with a Taser. This is a no-brainer.

Any policy must address the danger of repeated stun-gun shocks. Right now, there are no guidelines limiting the number of times a police officer can shock someone with a Taser weapon. Taser International itself states that "repeated, prolonged and/or continuous exposures to the Taser may cause strong muscle contractions that may impair breathing and respiration..." A man died in Vallejo, for example, after being shocked 17 times by police stun guns.

Unless the situation is life-threatening, children and minors, the elderly and pregnant women should not be shocked with a stun gun. The health hazards are too great.

Political protesters sometimes engage in passive civil disobedience such as sit-ins. Passive resisters should not be subject to stun-gun shocks.

To his credit, Chief Davis had agreed to collect more information on how his officers are using Tasers. However, expanded data collection is no substitute for sound safeguards. Unless clearer restrictions are put in place, it may be only a matter of time before another sad stun-gun headline hits the papers.

[James L]

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

Don't forget that police officers actually have two duties. The first is to protect the community they serve. But the second is to return home to their families safely.

These are actually backwards. Any public safety officer / ems worker / firefighter, etc should have going home safe to their family as their TOP duty.

This doesn't mean risks aren't taken in the line of duty.

It does mean that every step that can be taken to minimize those risks should be taken.


This article, and thread, is another example of armchair quarterbacking from people who were not there.

Without being in that exact situation, you cannot judge.

I have seen violent elderly males, and females for that matter, who were talked down after they had beat on somebody. No violence was required to restrain them.

I have seen them gently restrained.

I have seen incidents were we had to actually do a take down, correctional style, on the demented patient who had knocked one roommate unconscious, and injured one nurse who went in to help. Incidentally, this gentleman's arm was broken during the takedown because of the amount of physical force that was required (from 4 people) to restrain the assailant, and because he also had aged bones with a history of osteo.

I am not a cop. I have never been a cop. Having said that, I am well aware of the sh*t cops deal with on a daily and nightly basis that the general public never sees.

It is stupid to read a short article, on the internet, from the media (which is usually wrong on a good day), and then make a snap decision based on what was read.

Could these cops have been in the wrong? Possibly. Were they in the right? Also, possibly.

I do know that 99% of the people who make snap judgments in situations like these, however, could not handle the day to day crap that cops deal with.

From my perspective, I will give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Kevin

http://www.aclunc.org/opinion/050821-tasers.html

Since their debut in 2000, Taser stun guns have been billed as the weapon of choice for police. They've been touted as an easy way to subdue an uncooperative suspect without firing lethal bullets. But the fact is, dozens of people have died in incidents involving Tasers, including a San Jose man who was pepper-sprayed, beaten and jolted this month during a struggle with police.

I can show you examples of where a seat belt killed a passenger... does that mean we should ban seat belts?

I think the important thing to remember is... these devices potentially save lives and defuse situations quickly. Most of the time, it does it in a very non-leathal way... which IMHO, is a good thing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

I can show you examples of where a seat belt killed a passenger... does that mean we should ban seat belts?

No one is talking about banning them.

I think the important thing to remember is... these devices potentially save lives and defuse situations quickly. Most of the time, it does it in a very non-leathal way... which IMHO, is a good thing.

MOST of the time I am sure they do.

In this case, it was a few Barney Fife's that should have kept their "bullet" in their pocket.

[parsec_kadets]

Originally Posted by James L

These are actually backwards. Any public safety officer / ems worker / firefighter, etc should have going home safe to their family as their TOP duty.

You are correct, and I realized my mistake after I had posted. I considered editing my post, but decided to let it be.

That's scary, because there have been more than 140 post-stun-gun deaths nationwide. Of course, we don't know if Tasers were the cause of death in every incident, but the statistics strongly indicate that, under certain circumstances, these stun guns are simply not the safe, non-lethal weapon that their manufacturer once claimed.

I would like to know where this guy got that statistic. The Taser has never been shown to be the sole cause of a person's death. It has been shown to be a contributing factor, such as cases where the person had a severe pre-existing heart condition, or had so many drugs in their system that they were on the verge of an over-dose as it was. Regardless, I've never heard of any agency that has a "tase 'em all" policy. Examining a police department's policies isn't enough. You have to examine their training procedures as well.

Someone who is already unconscious or handcuffed should not be shocked with a Taser. This is a no-brainer.

I'll agree with the unconscious part. But the handcuffed part is different. It's still entirely possible for someone who is handcuffed to be a threat to others. Their hands are mostly immobilized, but those legs are still able to run and kick. SOME people will continue to be a threat until they are completely immobilized, which is where the Taser comes in.

In this case, it was a few Barney Fife's that should have kept their "bullet" in their pocket.

I disagree. I feel the level of force used in this instance was appropriate for the reasons I stated in my previous post. I find it interesting that you quote an opinion article that echos your view point, but fail to address the points people have made against your opinion. When trying to make a point, you need to do more than show examples of people who agree with you. You need to explain why those who disagree with you are incorrect.

[Kevin]

No, no I addressed them many times.

[jason98]

they should put a stun gun on either side of kevin's brain. shock therapy. of course first you have to have brain so the possibility of a successful result are very tiny.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by jason98

they should put a stun gun on either side of kevin's brain. shock therapy. of course first you have to have brain so the possibility of a successful result are very tiny.

[James L]

Originally Posted by parsec_kadets

You are correct, and I realized my mistake after I had posted. I considered editing my post, but decided to let it be.

I figured as much.

I would like to know where this guy got that statistic. The Taser has never been shown to be the sole cause of a person's death. It has been shown to be a contributing factor, such as cases where the person had a severe pre-existing heart condition, or had so many drugs in their system that they were on the verge of an over-dose as it was. Regardless, I've never heard of any agency that has a "tase 'em all" policy. Examining a police department's policies isn't enough. You have to examine their training procedures as well.

Well said. It is easy enough for armchair critics, without the field experience, to research policy online (or in this case, unclear newspaper articles).

Policy is a very small part of the equation, however. Training is the huge area. Not just academy training either, but ongoing field training and supervision.

I'll agree with the unconscious part. But the handcuffed part is different. It's still entirely possible for someone who is handcuffed to be a threat to others. Their hands are mostly immobilized, but those legs are still able to run and kick. SOME people will continue to be a threat until they are completely immobilized, which is where the Taser comes in.

Yup. Unfortunately, you need to live this to understand it... especially when people are under the influence of various substances.

I disagree. I feel the level of force used in this instance was appropriate for the reasons I stated in my previous post. I find it interesting that you quote an opinion article that echos your view point, but fail to address the points people have made against your opinion. When trying to make a point, you need to do more than show examples of people who agree with you. You need to explain why those who disagree with you are incorrect.

I won't agree or disagree. I will be mature enough to not judge a situation based on a few paragraphs in an internet article.

Innocent until proven guilty. What a novel concept!

Cheers,

James

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by James L

I won't agree or disagree. I will be mature enough to not judge a situation based on a few paragraphs in an internet article.

Innocent until proven guilty. What a novel concept!

YOU CAN'T DO THAT HERE!!!