<p>Link with #15, on a separate page than the story. He is a big man with tattoos.</p>
<p>That picture appears to go with the story on the heroin epidemic.</p>
<p>^^sorry, my bad</p>
<p>This is a sad story all the way around. However, please be careful before deciding to condemn the police officer for what he did. It’s a stressful job and none of us were there. They may not have known he was unarmed until after he was subdued.</p>
<p>For anyone who thinks police offcers aren’t injured or killed by unarmed (guns/knives) persons here is a link to the FBI statistics for2009 assualts. 27.6 % of the officers attacked by people using fists/feet were injured.</p>
<p>[Officers</a> Assaulted - Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2009](<a href=“http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/officersassaulted.html]Officers”>Officers Assaulted - Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2009)</p>
<p>Stress is no excuse for the murder of a college student that by no accounts was threatening to the officer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>18 and not even a freshman yet. Just attending a summer college-credit program.</p>
<p>Cops do not have to put their bodies on the line in hand to hand combat to detain or subdue suspects. Tasers have probably saved countless suspects from being shot rather than tasered. A few die and that is just unfortunate. If you comply you almost never have a taser incident to begin with. Just know they are not joking when they say to stop and comply. You may not get a second warning. This is not TV.</p>
<p>What a sad story. I think the use of tasers is something that has become a too easy substitute for resolving situations in ways used prior to the advent of their use.</p>
<p>Proudmom – so X percent were injured? But we dont know what injured means. A scratch?</p>
<p>If you comply you almost never have a taser incident to begin with. Just know they are not joking when they say to stop and comply. You may not get a second warning. This is not TV.</p>
<p>Im thinking this is an 18 yr old- and their frontal lobe doesn’t mature until they are 25. I envision someone approaching the officers to try and mediate- thinking they can calm the situation.
I can see if the officer was alone, then they would be more likely to use a weapon if they felt they were in danger- but am I right thinking that there was more than one officer present?</p>
<p>kayf…does it matter. The point I was making was that law enforcement officers are injured and killed all the time. They have a dangerous job and should be able to protect themselves. An assailant doesn’t have to have a weapon to hurt someone. </p>
<p>In this particular case the student did not stop when directed to. He was warned. I feel sorry for him and his family. It’s a sad situation but I have to wonder why he wouldn’t comply. My 17 year old would know enough to do so.</p>
<p>I wasn’t there and neither were you. Therefore, I think giving the officer the benefit of the doubt is fair.</p>
<p>There is no doubt tasers COULD be a useful tool that the public would fully support. However, the reality is that there are hundreds of stories (and these are just the ones that get publicized) from all over the country where they were used on people who presented no threat at all to the police officers in question. In a few cases, it ends in death. In most cases, simply excruciating pain.</p>
<p>We were told tasers would be used to SUBSTITUTE for some cases where officers would have previously shot the suspect. But instead they seem to be used in less dangerous cases for convenience purposes, or even childish retaliation/punishment. In those cases where officers would actually have shot the suspect, they still shoot the suspect.</p>
<p>I know the police have a hard job to do, and I believe people should show respect and comply with the police. However, in many of these cases, people are agitated and don’t calm down fast enough to suit the police. It is not against the law to be angry and rude, however, and people certainly don’t deserve to be tased just for a bad attitude.</p>
<p>Very well said Skyhook.</p>
<p>Where I live police are very well paid, and have great benefits. When they make mistakes, the municipality gets sued for a bundle.</p>
<p>The reality is that the personality profile of someone who would go into law enforcement is that of someone who is controlling and sadistic. They can taser people and if they are lucky they won’t kill them. Any other excuse is ridiculous. Why else would there be such large settlements?</p>
<p>Proud,</p>
<p>My point is that “injury” can include minor things. So yes, it does matter, if police are using Tasers to avoid minor injuries, or if they feel people just dont respect them. BIG difference. You want to give officer benefit of doubt. He will get that if a trial. But I think UCinn should re-examine their procedures.</p>
<p>“municipality gets sued for a bundle.” #32</p>
<p>The municipality doesn’t get sued. Taser, Inc. gets sued.</p>
<p>Wrong Parent 1986. Taser INC may also get sued, but municipality does too.</p>
<p>“You want to give officer benefit of doubt”#34</p>
<p>Why? Cause it is better than being shot? Back to the photo - if the person was a different
skin color, would he have been tased?</p>
<p>“Taser INC may also get sued, but municipality does too.”#36</p>
<p>Municipalities have legal protection and pay limited amounts when sued. Review Supreme
Court cases.</p>
<p>Parent – most municipalities will not take to SC. At least where I live, most will settle. And I think that is the right answer. But I question whether police use excessive force.</p>
<p>Gonzales vs. Castle Rock</p>