1 2
#99515
Mike
Would it be bad taste to say he got what he wanted?
11/1/2006 4:56:05 AM
#99560
Troff
a) Don't they call it \"suicide by cop\"?
b) Would it be worse taste to say that what he wanted doesn't exist?
11/1/2006 12:15:13 PM
#99562
Axver
This guy sounds like a huge nut, but I'm having a hard time understanding why it was necessary to fatally shoot him.
11/1/2006 12:16:12 PM
#99563
Solo
No, Mike in this case I don't think it would be bad taste.
11/1/2006 12:17:23 PM
#99564
anevilmeme
Another example of evolution in action
11/1/2006 12:17:32 PM
#99596
ryushikaze
Axver: It wasn't, hence the use of Stun guns, which are intended as nonlethal takedown. The kid must have simply reacted badly to the zappies
11/1/2006 1:00:04 PM
#99602
Archangel_Lucifer
From what I hear they were trying to search the kid for drugs and he was pretty obviously all jumped up on something.
When threatened with violence it's fairly standard to use tasers or another means to subdue the asailant. It sounds like he just had a bad reaction to the shock.
11/1/2006 1:07:20 PM
#99624
Axver
ryushikaze wrote:
Axver: It wasn't, hence the use of Stun guns, which are intended as nonlethal takedown. The kid must have simply reacted badly to the zappies
Right. I just don't see why they needed to use a stun gun on him, as it doesn't sound as if he was brandishing a knife or a gun or anything of the sort. Honestly, I'm just uncomfortable with the usage of guns, be they purportedly \"nonlethal\" stun guns or not.
11/1/2006 1:16:18 PM
#99656
Redhunter
He got jesus!
Mental illness is mental illness; it doesn't matter if he was on drugs, hitting himself in the head with a hammer, or screaming 'i want jesus', he was still out of his head and until the cops were able to get control over the little nutball, I wouldv'e acted the same. He's obviously unstable, and ignoring the direct orders of the police. Who knows what all he did before the cops got there. Then they still had to zap him twice? The holy spirit was strong with this one.
11/1/2006 1:54:42 PM
#99667
Brain_In_A_Jar
Stun guns are great if the opponent has anything resembling a weapon and you don't want to get too close but also don't want to kill him, but since in this case all he was apparently packing was a book (albeit a dangerous one!), I don't see why simply wrestling him to the ground and getting the cuffs on wouldn't be adequate - surely multiple police officers could take down one guy by hand!
11/1/2006 2:13:48 PM
#99678
Julian
This is your brain on Jesus!
11/1/2006 2:26:33 PM
#99684
MJR
I can think of some reasons why a stun gun would be preferred over wrestling with the guy.
1) Unnecessary risk of injury to the officers.
2) Less risk of injury to the offender, although it didn't work out in this case.
3) Wrestling with him is almost sure to bring up a lawsuit for police brutality.
4) If the wrestling incident is photographed or video taped there will be a public outcry against police brutality. This happened a few years ago where I live.
I think it is a tragedy that the person died but I don't think the officers did anything wrong.
11/1/2006 2:34:49 PM
#99688
MyGOD
You want him. You get him. Dumb Fuck..
Thank god, one less useless bastard polluting my world.
11/1/2006 2:48:39 PM
#99690
David D.G.
This is simply sad, in my opinion. This poor guy was obviously messed up (either from drugs or from mental illness, at least as much as from religion if not more so), and the attempt to gain control of him just went tragically wrong. If he hadn't reacted fatally to the shocks, he might have gotten the help he needed. Sometimes, though, the dice just are most unkind.
~David D.G.
11/1/2006 2:55:31 PM
#99721
Papabear
It's sad that it came to the point that they used a stun gun on him, but I don't see that the police were over the line. They were trying to use non-lethal means. Maybe one could fault the person(s) who got Mr. Holyfield hopped-up on Jesus.
11/1/2006 4:18:56 PM
#99779
TDR
I wonder what the rest of the story is....
11/1/2006 5:21:33 PM
#99904
Adrian
Don't underestimate the punch packed by a Bible, particularly a big, heavy leather-bound one.
11/1/2006 7:55:02 PM
#99937
Brain_In_A_Jar
I suppose that point about brutality is enough reason, but I gather stun guns can produce unbearable pain far in excess of anything you could reasonably expect from resisting physical restraint. Based on that, electrocution sounds much more \"brutal\" if you ask me, but that's just one man's opinion. Either way, though, what else is a policeman supposed to do when some fuckwit decides to violently resist arrest?
11/1/2006 8:36:44 PM
#99947
David D.G.
Brain_In_A_Jar: Electrocution wasn't the idea; he wasn't supposed to have been killed by it. Yes, the electrical jolt causes pain, but (theoretically) no lasting injury whatsoever, or even any temporary injury beyond the possibility of a small burn -- much less grievous damage than what would be expected for him to incur in a conventional tackle and physical subdual by multiple police officers. Had it worked correctly, this method of subdual would have let the officers bind him securely with no further risk of injury to himself or to them; that's what stun guns are designed for.
The problem isn't that the officers necessarily did anything wrong; it's that wrong things sometimes happen despite right actions (or perhaps that sometimes, there just are no \"right\" actions possible, and you just have to make a decision with the information you have and hope there are no critical pieces of information missing).
~David D.G.
11/1/2006 8:49:09 PM
#100037
MD20/20
As someone whose job at one time was to wrestle with people that were drugged out of their minds, I can honestly say I would have LOVED to have a tazer.
11/1/2006 10:59:14 PM
#100068
Distind
MD20/20 beat me to it, but someone in that state of mind is general dangerous in one form or another.
Drugged or not, even from this little chunk he was obviously screwed in the head. When cops aim a taser at you, you stop. If you don't, you get tasered. It's really that simple. If you look mean enough, they may not drop the taser right away, but so long as you don't give them good reason to use it most won't. And yea, keeping going at what ever caused them to aim it at you, is good reason for them to use it.
Love the \"Increase in taser deaths\" comment in the article, I wonder if it's in anyway linked to that \"Increase in the use of tasers rather than guns\" cause you know, all those taser deaths must be an exponential increase over the gun deaths.
11/1/2006 11:59:47 PM
#100154
[url=http://www.hubforums.com]DCoke[/url]
He's 17 years old. Two cops needed a stun-gun? Geez. They're slipping.
11/2/2006 2:53:00 AM
#100196
Skyfire
I can understand why the cops felt the need to use a tazer, but why did they insist on a double-tap?
The first go-around should have been enough to where he could have been subdued by hand.
11/2/2006 4:40:57 AM
#100197
Hadanelith
Skyfire: I think the point was that one wasn't enough. Stun guns are by no means precision instruments; putting down the target is as much a matter of luck as skill.
11/2/2006 4:47:20 AM
#100214
The Paul
My general understanding is that if someone takes a hit from a taser and gets back up, wrestling with them probably wasn't in your best interest.
11/2/2006 6:21:14 AM
1 2