View Full Version : This is bullsh*t
DrSmellThis
11-12-2004, 09:07 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12/child.tasered.
ap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/12/child.tasered.ap/index.html)
Mtnjim
11-12-2004, 10:53 AM
Ya', they should have used a 12
gage, since he was obviously a terrorist!! :think:
koolking1
11-12-2004, 02:37 PM
Hey Citizen!!! drop that
weapon or we'll shoot!!! Can you blame 'em - no tanks backing them up this time.
Pancho1188
11-12-2004, 03:15 PM
Why is that article
bullsh*t?
koolking1
11-12-2004, 04:02 PM
it's not the article
that's being disparaged it's the fact that two police officers felt a need to use a stun gun on a 6 year old. Put
yourself in the shoes of those policemen and tell us if you would have accomplished things the same way??
belgareth
11-12-2004, 04:09 PM
On the face of it, it's hard
to imagine doing that to a kid. You'd think that 4 adults could have cornered or outsmarted him to keep him from
hurting himself. Hurting himself is the real issue here. I've thought about it several times today and just don't
know. Can you imagine a situation in a confined space where it was the only option to keep him from further harming
himself?
I wasn't there and don't understand the situation. My inclination is to think using a taser on a kid
was pretty extreme and uncalled for. But I don't know.
DrSmellThis
11-12-2004, 04:38 PM
It's partly lack of training.
Anyone working with a lot of kids like in a school needs training on crisis management. For that matter cops should
be trained in dealing with kids too. I've worked with the most disturbed and suicidal kids there are for many years
and I can guarantee you there was no need to do that. There is no way a six year old should be able to harm
himself that bad with glass while six adults are standing around, or even one adult. Not only did he harm himself,
he got shot with a stun gun or whatever. As a child advocate I found that a bit disgusting.
But yeah, they
should have called in a swat team. :rolleyes:
HK45Mark23
11-12-2004, 04:42 PM
:think: 50,000
volts is a lot for a 6 year old kid. Good thing it was not one of those 250,000 volt machines. The kid would have
died for sure. The kid was hostile and armed I can’t say if their actions were excessive or not but I think they
are lucky that 50,000 volts did not kill the kid. He might be a large 6 years old and have a psychological problem
that increases his adrenalin. Under the condition that the kid was producing high levels of adrenalin he could be
dangerous and hard to handle. We have a state mental institution in my city. It is for the criminally mental ill.
It is a maximum security mental health facility. Many children are there and they are dangerous.
HK45Mark23:thumbsup:
DrSmellThis
11-12-2004, 04:53 PM
I also worked on a kids unit
in a mental hospital for three years, and in another residential facility. You're trained in crisis diffusion,
takedowns, holds, safety, seclusion and restraint pretty heavily and regularly. This obviously highlights the need
for training of people working with large numbers of kids. Most incidents dont need to get that point at all. Six
years old is very young in mental illness and dangerousness terms. They really don't become impossible to control
that young in terms of a single crisis with a lot of adults around. I mean he had a piece of broken glass in his
tiny hand for chrissakes, not an AK47.
50,000 volts does sound like a lot. Nine volts sounds like a lot.
culturalblonde
11-12-2004, 05:30 PM
Yeah, someone has a lot of
explaining to do.
The police
report:
http://www.miami.com/multimedia/miami/news/archive/taserreport.pdf
From the Miami
Herald:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10161183.htm?1c
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/
HK45Mark23
11-12-2004, 05:31 PM
Yes DST,
I agree and I feel I could have
restrained this kid. My cousin and her husband work in children’s psychiatric wards and it is true that they know
how to handle such situations. I feel the school principal should have been able to have handled this child. She if
any one should have had the training. This also brings up my “opinion” about how parents are not being allowed to
punish their children. Then the parents are punished if the child commits a crime. This kid may just need a good
spanking or series of them over a period of time. Sorry if this offends any one. I was spanked and am a better
person for it. I probably needed more but my parents loved me and truly meant it when they said “This is going to
hurt me more than it will you.” I love them for disciplining me.
50,000
volts is a lot for a kid and the higher the # the stronger. The difference between volts, amps and watts is a theory
I can discuss. Standard Stun Gun Conventional stun guns and tasers have a
fairly simple design. They are about the size of a flashlight, and they work on ordinary 9-volt batteries.
The batteries supply electricity to a circuit consisting of various electrical components. The circuitry
includes multiple
transformers (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/inside-transformer.htm), components that boost the
voltage in the circuit, typically to between 20,000 and 150,000 volts, or as many as 625,000 volts and reduce the
amperage. It also includes an oscillator, a component that fluctuates current to produce a specific pulse
pattern of electricity. This current charges a
capacitor (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/capacitor.htm). The capacitor builds up a charge,
and releases it to the electrodes, the "business end" of the circuit. The electrodes are simply two plates of
conducting metal positioned in the circuit with a gap between them. Since the electrodes are positioned along the
circuit, they have a high voltage difference between them. If you fill this gap with a conductor (say, the
attacker's body), the electrical pulses will try to move from one electrode the other, dumping electricity into the
attacker's nervous system. Cattle Prods Cattle prods are similar to stun guns in design -- they apply an electrical
current across two electrodes -- but they serve a completely different function. A stun gun uses an electrical
charge to incapacitate someone, while a cattle prod applies a charge to get a person or animal moving. A cattle prod
only causes pain; it does not significantly affect the muscles and nervous system of the body. These two devices
differ mainly in voltage. The voltage in a stun gun is high enough to dump electricity into the entire
body. The lower voltage in a cattle prod only shocks someone at the point of contact.
HK45Mark23
HK45Mark23
11-12-2004, 05:36 PM
I did a search on Google and
found this.
How Stun Guns Work
A stun gun is an
electrical self-defense device that uses high voltage to stop an attacker. Touching a person with the prongs on the
stun gun quickly immobilizes the attacker. However, because the amperage is very low, no serious or permanent injury
is inflicted.
Stun guns are designed to key into the nervous system. They dump their energy into the muscles at a
different frequency than the pulse waves emanating from the brain. The pulse waves coming from the brain and those
from the stun gun collide at the nerve synapse' which is a type of complex processing switch adjacent to each
muscle group. The resulting energy collision makes it difficult for an attacker to move and function. This causes
disorientation and loss of balance and leaves the attacker in a passive and confused condition for several minutes.
Still, stun guns have no significant effect on the heart and other organs.
As a general rule, a one-half second
contact from a stun gun will repel and startle the attacker, giving some pain and muscle contraction. One to two
seconds will cause muscle spasms and a dazed mental state. Over three seconds will cause loss of balance and muscle
control, mental confusion and disorientation.
However, don't think about how many seconds you should hold the stun
gun to your attacker. Think about it this way. Throw out what the books say and the online information you have read
about stun guns. You should hold your stun gun to the assailant until they drop and you can get away and call the
police, whether that may be one second or six seconds.
What is the difference between the 80,000 volt model and the
625,000 you might ask? Look at it this way, both stun guns will render your assailant helpless, but you might have
to hold the 80kv Talon mini a second or two longer than the 625kv Stunmaster. Consider this. A stun gun is effective
on most all parts of the body. But give yourself the best chance to get the best of your attacker. Hold the stun gun
on a body part that has a lot of surface area, such as the chest, abdomen, groin, kidneys, back, etc. An area such
as the arm or leg will work fine, but these body parts do not allow you the same amount of surface area that you
will need to contact for a few seconds.
What does a stun gun feel like? If you have ever hit your funny bone,
multiply that by ten thousand and extend it throughout your entire body. The inablility to function and feeling of
helplessness combined with the sensation of millions of tiny needles going through your body provides certain
inherent physical, mental and emotional trauma.
The electrical shock that emits from the stunning device will not
pass from the person being stunned to the person doing the stunning. The effect is localized only in the affected
area and does not pass through the body. Even if you or the attacker are wet or standing in water, you will not be
shocked.
HK45Mark23
DAdams91982
11-13-2004, 12:32 AM
50,000 Volts will not
kill... it isnt the volts that kills... it is the current... I dont believe it puts out enough current to kill...
even a 6 year old
adams
belgareth
11-13-2004, 12:55 AM
No, in a vast majority of cases
it will not kill. The amperage is miniscule and unless there is some other underlying issue it shouldn't be fatal.
You can get as many volts through you from a bad static shock although the duration is much shorter and the
frequency is not intended to disrupt nerve activity like a stun gun does. There have been fatalities associated with
stun guns but the victim had other problems also.
I think the Doc's point is that the adults present should
have been able to handle it without the stun gun. That's where all the uncertainty comes in. It seems like there
were a lot of failures leading up to the police taking action. It isn't a discipline issue, when a child gets to
the point of self inflicting harm, this is more than a temper tantrum. I am not at all oppossed to spanking a child
when appropriate but this case sounds like something different altogether.
HK45Mark23
11-13-2004, 12:56 AM
Yeah, you are right Adams, and I totally agree Belgareth. It is possibly a result of
improper parenting or abuse.
DAdams91982
11-13-2004, 07:45 AM
I understand the topic of
the thread was different, and I agree with you on them points... just I threw in a little bit of knowledge I had
:)
Adams
I don't see anyone griping about
police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics now?
DCW
DAdams91982
11-13-2004, 10:13 AM
I don't see
anyone griping about police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics now?
DCW
Completely different topic... but you put yourself in harms way why dont you... be a solution,
instead of bitching about the problem???
Adams
belgareth
11-13-2004, 10:30 AM
Completely
different topic... but you put yourself in harms way why dont you... be a solution, instead of bitching about the
problem???
Adams
Exactly! When you enter an arena you have to accept the risks associated with it.
koolking1
11-13-2004, 12:27 PM
about informing me in some way????
at any rate, here's this too:
Police
Tasered truant girl, 12
Miami Herald | Nov 13 2004
A Miami-Dade police officer used a Taser to
stop an unarmed, 12-year-old girl who was running away from him after she was caught skipping school, police
acknowledged Friday night.
The incident happened Nov. 5, just over two weeks after other Miami-Dade officers
used a stun gun to restrain a first-grader. In that case, police said the 6-year-old boy was holding a shard of
glass and threatening to cut himself. Police Director Bobby Parker defended the decision to shock the boy because he
could have seriously hurt himself.
But Parker said Friday that he could not defend the decision to shock the
fleeing 12-year-old, who was apparently drunk.
''Under the circumstances, we thought that he should not
have used the Taser,'' Parker said referring to the officer. ``It's likely that discipline will be
forthcoming.''
According to the incident report:
Officer William Nelson responded to an anonymous
complaint that some kids were swimming in a West Kendall pool, drinking alcohol and smoking cigars about 11
a.m.
Nelson said he noticed the girl was intoxicated and told her to get dressed so he could take her back to
school.
''While walking [the girl] to the police car, [she] took off running through the parking lot,''
Nelson wrote in his report.
Nelson, 38, a 15-year veteran, said he chased her and yelled several times for
her to stop. Nelson said he pulled out the Taser and fired when the girl began to run into traffic.
The
electric probes hit the girl in the neck and lower back, immobilizing her with 50,000 volts.
Nelson said he
fired ''for my safety along with [the girl's] safety.'' He could not be reached for comment.
Paramedics
treated the girl, who went home with her mother.
Parker said department policy permits officers to use the
Taser to apprehend someone, but he said he expected his officers to use better judgment -- especially when police
had no plans to arrest someone playing hooky.
''If you use it to apprehend an adult, it would be an arrest
kind of situation,'' said Parker, adding that the timing of the latest incident couldn't be any worse.
His
department is already under fire for using a Taser to subdue the 6-year-old last month. That zapping has made
national headlines and prompted calls from child advocates that Miami-Dade review its Taser use.
Parker said
Friday night that his department will review its Taser policy. ''That doesn't mean that we're going to change
it,'' he said.
County Commissioner Joe Martinez, a former Miami-Dade officer, said the policy needs to be
tightened.
''When you have a 6-year-old who is on medication and very disturbed, maybe some of that crisis
intervention training would be very handy,'' he said, referring to a program that teaches officers how to deal
with the mentally ill. ``Now, when I learn that a 12-year-old girl was running away, truant, and was also Tasered, I
think it's time we instruct the county manager to look at that policy.''
Asked if his officers had shocked
any other kids, Parker said: ``I asked the same question, are there more of these out there that I'm not aware of?
To my knowledge this is the only one.''
Completely
different topic... but you put yourself in harms way why dont you... be a solution, instead of bitching about the
problem???
Adams
Different topic??
I thought we were talking about excessive
force and proper training?
And who's bicthing...not here.
DCW
koolking1
11-13-2004, 12:34 PM
"I don't see anyone
griping about police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics
now?
DCW"
I don't see how this could possibly be "off-topic". Police brutality includes not only
the use of stun guns, real guns, night-sticks, broomstick handles, fists, overly tightened handcuffs, etc etc.. I
don't really care too much when it comes to common everyday criminals but when we're talking kids and legitimate
political protestors I care a whole bunch.
"I don't see anyone
griping about police shooting unarmed "suspects" in the back.
Why should they change their tactics
now?
DCW"
I don't see how this could possibly be "off-topic". Police brutality includes not only
the use of stun guns, real guns, night-sticks, broomstick handles, fists, overly tightened handcuffs, etc etc.. I
don't really care too much when it comes to common everyday criminals but when we're talking kids and legitimate
political protestors I care a whole bunch.
Thank you, Thank you, someone finally got
it.
DCW
DrSmellThis
11-13-2004, 02:51 PM
Police also need training in
dealing with kids.
Usually they're coming from a place of not accepting risk of physical harm or engaging in
physical intervention except when the result of incapacitation of a "subject" will be virtually guaranteed.
If they're going to "get physical", somebody is getting incapacitated. Further, if they're going to shoot, it
will be to kill.
There used to be a lot more emphasis on "halfway" measures like judo holds and the like. For
that matter, the days of "aiming for a leg "are long gone -- a "quaint" relic of the past (like the Geneva
Convention, according to Ashcroft's replacement ;)).
But with small kids, the issue is entirely different, in
that the risk of critical bodily harm to an officer is much lower, unless the kid has a gun or knife; and the
risk to the subject is much higher. A policy of least harmful intervention should be in place.
There are
various holds and restraint/seclusion proceedures that are time tested and court-tested -- that will stand scrutiny;
and have proved safe.
There is no excuse for police officers to not have this training. It also comes in handy
with other less dangerous "subjects". Police cannot have a situation were they are completely insulated from mixing
it up with anyone in such cases. That risk also comes with the territory.
Aside from that, 99 times out of 100,
a skilled crisis worker can diffuse a situation without anything "physical" happening.
In this case, chances
are someone could have just said "Billy, I'm going to help you stay safe with that glass", grabbed the child's
wrist, and freed the glass. At most the person would have gotten punched by a six year old. Big f-ing deal! There
are lots of other, more involved techniques that could have been tried, of course, and would have worked much
better, given the presence of multiple adults.
Some thick gloves over rubber would have helped, or even some
towels over rubber. Glass is a pretty common dangerous object to encounter, since it is the most readily available
dangerous thing. The factor here is that people are afraid of getting AIDS or Hepatitis through contact with bodily
fluids.
But there are priorities to consider, once you minimize risks to the extent possible.
Pancho1188
11-14-2004, 12:20 PM
I still don't get why
everyone's making such a fuss. The 6-year old cut himself three times. The cop stopped himself from hurting
himself anymore, and the kid is not permanently harmed. In the other case, had a drunken 12-year old run out into
traffic and gotten killed while being chased by the police, you can be sure that officer would've been in three
times the trouble he's in now. After 15 years on the force, he saved himself a world of trouble.
When you're
in the heat of the moment with a worked-up kid, you have the option of taking him down with your hands or using the
taser. Kids are small and agile, and with his level of arousal he could've wiggled his way enough to hurt himself
further. He could've cut one of the people there. The taser was a sure thing.
I knew a guy who specialized
in pressure points and took down this psych patient who was huge and because of his illness could summon almost
inhuman strength. In fact, the two or three guys supposed to be handling him told the guy to let the patient go
because they could handle it, and when he did the patient flipped out again and the guy had to repeat his
technique.
As nice as it would be to teach every police officer those or similar techniques, the taser was just
as effective in those situations.
There is a major difference between killing someone and temporarily
incapacitating them, by the way...in these situations, I believe the police made the correct moves to protect
everyone involved. You can't expect the police, with the low budget it probably has in the first place, to be
trained in every form of disabling people known to man. As my friend once said, "I don't like how martial arts
shows you 1,500 ways to do things. When you're actually in a fight-or-flight situation, you forget it all.
You're not going to do a back flip into a flying spin kick. In those situations, you should master one move and be
able to use it effectively. After all, fights aren't like in the movies. Fights last 2 seconds. You have time
for one move to take the other guy down. Know what your move is and execute it perfectly." I think that's what
the police did.
Nobody's hurt, so why is everyone complaining?
DAdams91982
11-14-2004, 12:45 PM
Great post Pancho.
DCW... How can you say this is in the same ball field???
A suspect gets shot (And you are NEVER in these
types of situations, so you cant judge him)... the police officer could have had reason to believe his life was in
danger... YOU DONT KNOW... so therefore you cannot judge this... he wears a uniform that draws in danger, and if it
wasnt him to pull the trigger, who knows... he could be the one dead... we give police a certain amount of power for
a reason... so protect and serve the people who dont want to.
This situation was defused, no one was hurt beyond
what was already done, were are these even close together???
Adams
SweetBrenda
11-14-2004, 01:07 PM
I still
don't get why everyone's making such a fuss. The 6-year old cut himself three times. The cop stopped himself from
hurting himself anymore, and the kid is not permanently harmed. In the other case, had a drunken 12-year old run out
into traffic and gotten killed while being chased by the police, you can be sure that officer would've been in
three times the trouble he's in now. After 15 years on the force, he saved himself a world of trouble.
When
you're in the heat of the moment with a worked-up kid, you have the option of taking him down with your hands or
using the taser. Kids are small and agile, and with his level of arousal he could've wiggled his way enough to hurt
himself further. He could've cut one of the people there. The taser was a sure thing.
I knew a guy who
specialized in pressure points and took down this psych patient who was huge and because of his illness could summon
almost inhuman strength. In fact, the two or three guys supposed to be handling him told the guy to let the patient
go because they could handle it, and when he did the patient flipped out again and the guy had to repeat his
technique.
As nice as it would be to teach every police officer those or similar techniques, the taser was just
as effective in those situations.
There is a major difference between killing someone and temporarily
incapacitating them, by the way...in these situations, I believe the police made the correct moves to protect
everyone involved. You can't expect the police, with the low budget it probably has in the first place, to be
trained in every form of disabling people known to man. As my friend once said, "I don't like how martial arts
shows you 1,500 ways to do things. When you're actually in a fight-or-flight situation, you forget it all. You're
not going to do a back flip into a flying spin kick. In those situations, you should master one move and be able to
use it effectively. After all, fights aren't like in the movies. Fights last 2 seconds. You have time for one move
to take the other guy down. Know what your move is and execute it perfectly." I think that's what the police did.
Nobody's hurt, so why is everyone complaining?:goodpost: Well said Pancho.
Yea, I would have just shot the
little f*ckers! :lol:
Great post
Pancho.
DCW... How can you say this is in the same ball field???
A suspect gets shot (And you are
NEVER in these types of situations, so you cant judge him)... the police officer could have had reason to believe
his life was in danger... YOU DONT KNOW... so therefore you cannot judge this... he wears a uniform that draws in
danger, and if it wasnt him to pull the trigger, who knows... he could be the one dead... we give police a certain
amount of power for a reason... so protect and serve the people who dont want to.
This situation was
defused, no one was hurt beyond what was already done, were are these even close together???
Adams
Did you read my post? I know the word "suspesct" carry a certain ahh....shall we say
image to some of you in here.
To be a "suspect" doesn't necessarly mean your guilty of any crime (imagine
that).
The so called "suspect" was a 17 year old kid that was "running away" I say it again "running awaaaay"
from the brave policeman
when he was shot in the back, and the reason he was running away? Well it turned out
that this "suspect" was working illegally
cleaning offices and was walking home and just happen to be at the
wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm sure he probably he deserved it taking away minimum wage cleaning jobs
away from red blooded American, justice was served.
DCW
DrSmellThis
11-14-2004, 08:01 PM
It's hard for me to believe
people are defending using a stun gun on a six year old. Amazing.
It could definitely imprint some sort
of psychological trauma that manifests itself for the rest of his life.
DrSmellThis
11-14-2004, 09:01 PM
It's called child abuse.
DAdams91982
11-15-2004, 12:48 AM
No I am not defending using
a stun gun on a six year old... there were different ways to handle that no doubt... But yes the problem was
diffused.... and no one got hurt.
But people are sitting here putting a dark image over all the people who
protect and serve, with a very obtuse generalization.
Someone who does put their life on the line everyday is
criticizing someone who does. Which you have no room to do so when you do know do so yourself.
Being were I
am I no longer listen to media one bit... no matter how many sources it comes from (Considering they stake each
other out)... I only give my opinion on stuff I witness first hand, or have had expierience in. Which some people
should think about, before they go speaking out against something they have no CLUE about.
Adams
DrSmellThis
11-15-2004, 02:50 AM
I happen to be a child
psychologist and I've got news for you: Emotional and physical trauma is getting hurt, especially when you're six.
The damage from either emotional or physical abuse can take a lifetime to heal.
Child care and education are
neither war nor beat policing. Just because somebody has a gun doesn't excuse him or her from knowing the
difference. To imagine that a six year old with a piece of glass, in a roomful of professional adults, is a grave
mortal threat would almost be paranoid and antisocial thinking. I could say that people who lack knowledge, training
and experience regarding taking care of disturbed kids have no room to talk about how to do so in a crisis.
People who protect and serve needn't feel like victims when asked to take responsibility for their irresponsible
actions, and find safer approaches to working with the community that hired them to protect and serve.
camusflage
11-15-2004, 01:26 PM
Did you see about the 76 year
old woman tasered for not leaving a nursing home?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/21/granny_spark_out/
What about the guy who was stealing
electricity who was killed by a taser? (irony surrenders)
http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/feed/article.aspx?ArticleID=50
I think DAdams problem is that people
who become cops or soldier are put in situations where the right and wrong path isn't always immediately known, and
that they deserve a greater margin for error because mistakes will happen. They shouldn't be punished for putting
themselves in vunerable situations - afterall human error is inevitable, and there are plenty of grey
areas.
I agree there has to be accountability though, whether it be doctors, cops, soldiers etc. But they
also deserve some sort of allowance to f*ck up since they are putting themselves in situations where mistakes will
be made, and it is hard to ask for a cop or soldier to be on the other side of the mistake (ie get
shot).
That does not mean they should allowed to be negligent, however.
DrSmellThis
11-15-2004, 08:14 PM
Agreed, in general.
Of
course a soldier needs a greater margin of error in a war -- a cop on a traffic stop too.
The following
was a somewhat different kind of incident, for example, though still a serious matter:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15
/marine.probe/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/15/marine.probe/index.html)
The problem is that this is not the issue here; just as it's not an issue of
random error in a crisis.
If you walk into, say, a day care to attend to an out of control 6 year old, your
mind set and menu of interventions has to be different from the outset. It's not like you're busting a crack
house.
And of course, there were multiple problems in the situation, and plenty of blame to go around.
The
biggest problem is education and law enforcement training rather than the individual officer, who nonetheless also
played a part. This is systemic with law enforcement. Funding loss is always an issue too. At least in Oregon, there
is big problem with lack of support for training. More thorough training also gives you a chance to spot those who
may be psychologically inappropriate for police duty.
The issue is also not one of failing to understand and
forgive when someone -- or a system -- makes a mistake and owns up, seeking to repair the problem.
On
the other hand, there's no excuse for someone involved failing to see there's a problem. People thinking
out loud or shooting the breeze in a forum is different, and not a big deal. But I also hope the public is not
growing accustomed and complacent regarding misuses of force.
koolking1
11-15-2004, 08:58 PM
I always thought that two
wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age bracket as Adams,
Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm amazed, really
amazed.
I always thought
that two wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age bracket as
Adams, Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm amazed,
really amazed.
I'm not sure what your point is.
DCW
I'm not sure what your
point is.
DCW
Ok I get now :wave:
Actually I 'm pretty sure I'm older and I often
lie about my age especially on the web :lol:
DCW
DrSmellThis
11-15-2004, 09:40 PM
I always
thought that two wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age
bracket as Adams, Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm
amazed, really amazed. Most that age try on and take off beliefs like shopping for shoes; but eventually
pick ones that fit.
Mtnjim
11-16-2004, 10:54 AM
Most that age
try on and take off beliefs like shopping for shoes; but eventually pick ones that fit.
We all
did it, if I remember right--then again I am old and senile!
DAdams91982
11-17-2004, 08:30 AM
I always
thought that two wrongs didn't make a right. Guess I'm getting old. I really hope that DCW is in the same age
bracket as Adams, Pancho, and Sweet Brenda - otherwise my opinion of that age group is going to be lessened. I'm
amazed, really amazed.
Great words from someone who doesnt have to deal with this shit face to face.
BJF... that is essentially what I am trying to say... not so much that you should give them a margin of error...
but it might be a differnet story if you were to be in the situation they were in.
But like I said... Everyone
here has their own opinion, and I am not trying to change that.. but to put yourself in other people shoes, and then
make an informed decision... NOT FROM THE DAMN MEDIA!!!
Adams
Mtnjim
11-17-2004, 10:50 AM
Great words from
someone who doesnt have to deal with this shit face to face.
Adams
While I appreciate what
you are doing, please be aware that you are not the first, nor will you be the last to "deal with this sh!t face to
face". :nono:
I was dealing with it before you were (probably) born, ever heard of a place called Viet Nam??
:frustrate
At least you get to be a "hero", :box: not "a baby raper and mother killer"! :POKE:
koolking1
11-17-2004, 02:30 PM
Adams, you really don't
understand the caliber of many of the posters here. I have 1003 days, yes 1000 and 3 days of IndoChina service.
And, I still feel no need for anyone in this country to use a stun gun on a child, or a law-abiding adult for that
matter (protestors come to mind).
DrSmellThis
11-17-2004, 06:45 PM
Again, I hope I appreciate the
work DAdams and his colleagues are doing. I don't know much about fighting wars.
In my 15 years of child MH
work, though, I've often been face to face with more out of control, emotionally and behaviorally disturbed kids in
a week than most humans will be in a lifetime. In addition, I just came off of 3-4 years general mental health
crisis work, where I was helping suicidal folks and others in crises multiple times every day. We also did crisis
work for 9/11 (as it was happening on 9/11 and after), anthrax incidents, and the space shuttle disaster. So if I
was in that particular situation with the boy and his glass I'm pretty sure I'd be calmer, sharper and exercise
better judgement than I would in most normal, day-to-day situations; like, say, waiting in line at the DEQ. ;) It
would be just another interesting day at work in many respects, and that child almost surely would not have hurt
himself further after the intervention started.
I mostly worry about folks being in those situations without
having the necessary training, just like I'd worry about my own ability to bust a crack house. Cops would not
typically have the necessary training, sadly.
Communities need mental health professionals to work closely with
law enforcement for sure, since it's so freaking common to encounter disturbed individuals. It wouldn't hurt the
military either to have training in mental health crisis. The best way to handle an emergency is to avoid it in the
first place, no matter how well armed you are.
Elk Dreamer
11-17-2004, 08:02 PM
Totally Agree with you DST.
I too have been there. No need for this extreme force.
Officers untrained!
Elk
DAdams91982
11-18-2004, 11:07 AM
While I
appreciate what you are doing, please be aware that you are not the first, nor will you be the last to "deal with
this sh!t face to face". :nono:
I was dealing with it before you were (probably) born, ever heard of a place
called Viet Nam?? :frustrate
At least you get to be a "hero", :box: not "a baby raper and mother killer"!
:POKE:
And you know... I never said I was the first or last... The people of Vietnam have my complete
respect... You say people call me hero... but I get alot of the same flak that the people of Vietnam get. Which is
wrong... We are troops that follow orders... Though I do complete agree with what is happening.
Adams
DAdams91982
11-18-2004, 11:12 AM
Again, I
hope I appreciate the work DAdams and his colleagues are doing. I don't know much about fighting wars.
In my 15
years of child MH work, though, I've often been face to face with more out of control, emotionally and behaviorally
disturbed kids in a week than most humans will be in a lifetime. In addition, I just came off of 3-4 years general
mental health crisis work, where I was helping suicidal folks and others in crises multiple times every day. We also
did crisis work for 9/11 (as it was happening on 9/11 and after), anthrax incidents, and the space shuttle disaster.
So if I was in that particular situation with the boy and his glass I'm pretty sure I'd be calmer, sharper and
exercise better judgement than I would in most normal, day-to-day situations; like, say, waiting in line at the DEQ.
;) It would be just another interesting day at work in many respects, and that child almost surely would not have
hurt himself further after the intervention started.
I mostly worry about folks being in those situations
without having the necessary training, just like I'd worry about my own ability to bust a crack house. Cops would
not typically have the necessary training, sadly.
Communities need mental health professionals to work closely
with law enforcement for sure, since it's so freaking common to encounter disturbed individuals. It wouldn't hurt
the military either to have training in mental health crisis. The best way to handle an emergency is to avoid it in
the first place, no matter how well armed you are.
And you know... that opinion is completely logical...
and more training is ALWAYS a plus... we in the military do get training... not for specifically situations like
this... but all around mental health... which has to be repeated yearly...
... And remember... Human basic
instincts are Reproduction, and Survival.
Adams
DAdams91982
11-18-2004, 11:16 AM
Adams, you
really don't understand the caliber of many of the posters here. I have 1003 days, yes 1000 and 3 days of IndoChina
service. And, I still feel no need for anyone in this country to use a stun gun on a child, or a law-abiding adult
for that matter (protestors come to mind).
Then if your so High Caliber... why would you do something
petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???
Kinda shots holes in any opinons you
throw out there.
Adams
metroman
11-18-2004, 05:19 PM
I think it was purely a matter
of luck that no one did get hurt, I agree; stun guns or tasers have no place being used on 6 year olds. Its
obviously crazy & I think it just reflects a growing fascist mentality amongst some members in the law enforcement
community.
Pancho1188
11-18-2004, 06:24 PM
Pop quiz: A person holds a
piece of glass to a 6-year old boy. After trying to talk him out of it to no avail, do you use the stun gun on that
person to save the child?
Anyone would say yes to that. In fact, you'd probably say do whatever's necessary,
even if it means killing him, because he's threatening a child's life. Wouldn't you?
...well, the person just so happened to be himself in that situation. Ohhhh, now
it's different...what if it was one child with a piece of glass to another child's throat? Would you use the stun
gun then or would you just talk to the kid? What if it was a gun? Oh, now that's different...the
line's getting fuzzy now, isn't it...and you have all the time in the world to ponder morality without someone's
life on the line...I'm sure it's not so different when you're in the situation and you have to make a move or
somebody dies. I'm glad we can all sit and criticize the poor guy who saved the child's life for using a
method that didn't do so much as shake the boy up for 5 minutes...
Child abuse...whatever made that kid do
that was child abuse...what was done was in the child's best interest to keep him from hurting himself
further (yeah, let's not forget he already hurt himself three times). Psychological trauma...whatever caused
him to cut himself is the real psychological trauma. The cop prevented the child from killing himself so that he
could get the help he needed to erase that possible trauma and abuse (or just mental instability). Sure, there were
other ways to go about it, but obviously they didn't work, did they? Geez, everyone acts like the guy saw the kid
with a piece of glass and stunned him. Probably what actually happened was this went on for a while...the kid lost
it, the principle alerted others, the police finally arrived, they tried to talk him out of it, it didn't work, the
kid started cutting his own leg after cutting his eye and another part of his body...what do you do? Do you continue
to try and talk him out of it when he's in the middle of killing himself? Do you try to take him out and
accidentally slice the boy up or beat him to a pulp? Do you simply shock him and catch him as he temporarily loses
his ability to stand like his feet fell asleep for a few minutes and get him to the hospital to treat the
real threat---his self-inflicted wounds?
I'm very offended that someone would even for a second
question my values when I've been the leader in actually realizing the immediate threat of harm to that child,
himself, and the police officer's solution that caused minimal harm to the child compared to the damage he
was inflicting on himself at the time. Where are my values? That officer saved the boy's life and you're
crucifying him. Where are your values? What about all of those incidents where kids, teenagers, and even adults die
in a struggle because the gun went off, the knife/glass/weapon slipped and killed the person they were trying to
protect? What do you do then? You crucify the police officer for not doing his job properly without hurting someone
else because he had to use a method other than the best he had available because some 'armchair police officer'
(taking the term from football) thought he could do a better job.
I'm not saying walking up to a kid and
shocking him with a stun gun is perfectly normal. I'm saying in that situation, it was justified. The kid is fine,
there was no permanent harm done because of the incident, and any hesistation from that officer could've cost the
boy his life. That's how I see it. The officer did his job and saved a child's life. Where are my values? They're
right here where I support the people who do good in this world and only question them when they use excessive force
to harm a human being instead of help them.
There are much worse crimes in this world than temporarily
shocking a child to prevent him from hurting or killing himself. Those are the ones I'm worried about.
Values...more like priorities. The child's life was number one on that man's list, and you're all willing to
risk the child's life just so you don't use a stun gun and look bad. To me, that's wrong.
HK45Mark23
11-18-2004, 09:37 PM
Well Stated Panch!
I agree. I have to ponder how to address tough situations that are life threatening every day. I
saved a girl form a rapist just 5 months ago. I also saved my self from two street thugs with base ball bats 2
months ago. In my aria we have right to carry permits and I have carried for 12 years. I teach safety and
marksmanship. I personally make my own ballistic gelatin and conduct ballistic studies. I spend a lot of time
studying physics relating to firearms and projectiles and going to marksmanship competitions. I have to contemplate
proper storage, the law and safety every day. To acquire a permit you must file an application to the Police and
State Police with finger prints. The application reads “This is not a permit to use a firearm it is a permit to
carry a fire arm. The only way you may use your firearm is if someone has the intensions and ability to cause
severe bodily harm to you or someone else’s person.” According to the law if you use profanity directed toward a
person when in an altercation with them you can be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon if you are armed when you
do it. You bare the responsibility to do every thing possible to defuse a bad situation. If you can run, run. You
may only use deadly force to stop some one from causing severe bodily harm or death to you or some one else.
You can’t just get mad because some one talks bad about your mother or
something. But if you go into a bank and some guy picks up a little
girl and places a gun to her head and says I’ll blow her head off,” then you can legally pick him off and be
justified by the law. He was armed and had intentions to cause severe bodily harm or death to the little girl.
Many police are glad to arrive at the scene of an attempted rape to find an armed citizen with a rapist on the
ground face down waiting for the police to arrest him. I have been there. If he did not drop the knife that he had
to her throat I would have done what I had to do. I was not happy to be in that situation. I hope it never happens
again, but if I have to, I will do what I have to do to stop a horrific crime against a law abiding citizen. I
spent several days thinking about what happened. I thought about the ramifications of what could have happened.
How I felt about that was on my mind for weeks, I did not like it. I still know a woman was saved. It was
something I could not have done because of my stature if I was not armed. Now with the guys that thought I would be
a fun target because I am a smaller guy and they were both about 6’. As they approached me and I realized what was
about to happen, they were going to beet me with ball bats, I prepared like an old west gun fighter. I pulled my
shirt so to give me access and I un-latched it so I could use a quick drawl technique. Then they said “What, you
going to shoot us?” I said, “I don’t want to do that to your family and friends. My heart breaks just thinking
about all the people who’s life will be affected and will morn the loss. But, I will if I have to. I think it is
best for all, that you go home and enjoy your families. I suggest you go and give your mother a big hug and kiss.”
One of them put the bat about 3 inches from my face called me a short ugly mf and then they turned around and went
home. They cursed me all the way down the road. I am glad they lived. I am lucky. It is hard to defuse a bad
situation. You can’t think clearly. The adrenalin flows thick. You have to resort to training. I feel that I
could of disarmed the child manually, but I was not there. Pancho is correct there was ultimately less harm done
than if nothing was done. It is good to contemplate what your options are and how you can deal with a situation
because when it happens you don’t have the time to think about it you must act. P.S. What is an HK45Mark23?
HK45Mark23
belgareth
11-19-2004, 01:30 AM
I've been avoiding this
discussion because nobody on this forum was there and the details were very thin so we couldn't possibly know the
circumstances well enough to have a valid opinion. I agree with the comments about armchair quarterbacking the
event.
There were a lot of good arguments made for both sides of the debate. The one thing that is clear to me
though is that there was something dreadfully wrong in the first place, before it ended up with a child holding a
piece of glass. That is where our system failed the child; not in the final resolution, if you could call it that. I
hear all sorts of arguments about how we would have/should have handled it but hear nothing about how it could have
been prevented. I know from my own experience and training that almost every violent situation can be prevented and
that is where the real skill comes in and where the questions should be directed. Where did we go so far wrong that
a child felt so threatened or was so disturbed as to want to do himself or others harm?
Pancho1188
11-19-2004, 06:14 AM
There were
a lot of good arguments made for both sides of the debate. The one thing that is clear to me though is that there
was something dreadfully wrong in the first place, before it ended up with a child holding a piece of glass. That is
where our system failed the child; not in the final resolution, if you could call it that. I hear all sorts of
arguments about how we would have/should have handled it but hear nothing about how it could have been prevented. I
know from my own experience and training that almost every violent situation can be prevented and that is where the
real skill comes in and where the questions should be directed. Where did we go so far wrong that a child felt so
threatened or was so disturbed as to want to do himself or others harm?
:goodpost: This is what I was
thinking, and I am sure DST was thinking the same thing as a professional in the field.
koolking1
11-20-2004, 02:27 PM
Well, perhaps we should
leave it to the courts to decide for us in these two cases. I know if I were a parent of either of them, it would
go to court. I think it will. I will try to follow-up on this issue.
D Adams: "Then if your so High
Caliber... why would you do something petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???
Kinda shots holes in any opinons you throw out there.
Adams"
Well Adams, did you not first
stereotype myself and others by proclaiming that we didn't really have the right to an opinion because "we hadn't
been there, done that". You were the first to jump to conclusions about posters on this thread. I can assure you,
we do have the right to our opinions and you are always welcome to criticise them if you so wish. You are smart,
now would you just please take a refresher course in H.S. English so your opinions will be easier to read. The Air
Force needs people who can write effectively. Do yourself a favor, take that class and one day you'll also be
"High Caliber"
koolking1
11-21-2004, 06:33 AM
MIAMI (Nov. 20) -
The head of Miami-Dade Schools is asking police to never again use stun guns on elementary school children, as
officers have in at least two recent cases.
In a letter released Friday, Superintendent Rudy Crew told
Miami-Dade Police Director Bobby Parker that "certain tactics should never be used in dealing with young children -
particularly within a school."
The letter was released the same day Parker held a news conference to defend
the use of a 50,000-volt stun gun on a 6-year-old boy in a school office, saying the child had cut himself twice
with a shard of glass and was threatening further harm to himself.
Parker acknowledge that it was
questionable when an officer used a Taser stun gun on a 12-year-old girl, who was fleeing officers because she was
drunk and apparently skipping school.
Police officials did not return a call Saturday seeking comment on
Crew's letter.
On Friday, Parker said officials were reviewing their policy on stun gun use but that
officers will be allowed to continue using them until the review is complete.
The 6-year-old boy who was
stunned on Oct. 20 was treated and then hospitalized for psychiatric observation for five days. A lawyer retained by
his mother has not yet decided whether to file suit.
The girl was checked by a doctor after she was zapped
Nov. 5. The officer in that case voluntarily gave up his Taser, police spokesman Pete Andreu
said.
11/20/04 15:15 EST
DAdams91982
11-21-2004, 11:57 AM
Well,
perhaps we should leave it to the courts to decide for us in these two cases. I know if I were a parent of either of
them, it would go to court. I think it will. I will try to follow-up on this issue.
D Adams: "Then if your so
High Caliber... why would you do something petty like sterotyping a whole age bracket with 3 peoples opinions???
Kinda shots holes in any opinons you throw out there.
Adams"
Well Adams, did you not first stereotype
myself and others by proclaiming that we didn't really have the right to an opinion because "we hadn't been there,
done that". You were the first to jump to conclusions about posters on this thread. I can assure you, we do have the
right to our opinions and you are always welcome to criticise them if you so wish. You are smart, now would you just
please take a refresher course in H.S. English so your opinions will be easier to read. The Air Force needs people
who can write effectively. Do yourself a favor, take that class and one day you'll also be "High Caliber"
When all else fails... attack mistypes. Scraping the bottom of the barrel are we. You have never thought way
ahead of your typing???
And no I wasnt sterotyping... I was saying you have never been presented with these
situations... so therefor, you dont know what they were going through.
Adams
PS... I will read every post
you throw up VERY carefully, to try and pick up tips inside them, so when I come back to the civilization I have
sworn to protect... they will show me the same respect of a person like you. "High Caliber"
belgareth
11-21-2004, 01:03 PM
I think this has gone far
enough off track. Let's drop the personal attacks so I don't have to close the thread.
Surreal
11-21-2004, 05:40 PM
If the cop can touch the kid
with a device 3 inches from his hand, the cop can CERTAINLY reach out and SMACK the kid. No, I meant grab the hand
the glass was in. How hard is it for any number of adults to bum rush a tiny kid. Glass or no glass.
Any human
extremly hurting himself, especialy at such a young age, is mentaly unstable. No degree of good or bad parenting can
"fix" a chemical imbalence in the human brain/body.
DrSmellThis
11-21-2004, 05:46 PM
I hope most realize that there
is no interesting debate here.
Pancho, you've been much improved in your posting, and I've been
cheering for you; but please stop pretending you know what you are talking about in this case. Mark's last gun
enthusiast rant about "quick drawling" while discussing handling disturbed six year olds was just about absurd
and ironic enough.
I'd love to see this thread closed. I'm losing my patience with all this stupid anti-child,
pro abuse talk.
koolking1
11-21-2004, 06:20 PM
For me, closed.
HK45Mark23
11-22-2004, 01:45 AM
I hope
most realize that there is no interesting debate here.
Pancho, you've been much improved in your
posting, and I've been cheering for you; but please stop pretending you know what you are talking about in this
case. Mark's last gun enthusiast rant about "quick drawling" while discussing handling disturbed six year
olds was just about absurd and ironic enough.
I'd love to see this thread closed. I'm losing my patience with
all this stupid anti-child, pro abuse talk.
Really
Doc,
I was referring to the fact that things happen in an instance
and there is no time to think. I meant that a person must be prepared to deal with tough situations and able to
react in an instance. I saved a woman’s life and saved her for being raped. Because of my reflexes and athletic
history I am capable of making instant decisions and implementing them. I was in a situation where a child has
picked up a dangerous item and I immediately but gently grabbed his wrist and removed the object. The child did not
know what happened or why. I then sat the kid on my lap and said “Hey there little partner that could hurt you. We
would not want that. So here is a toy you will like this much better any way.” I believe this was at one of my
dads Mexican friends house, the child was about 5 and the object was a sheaf knife. The kid was not harmed and all
was well. But no one else did any thing. I reacted instantly and was furthest from the child. Bruce Lee said he
always thought about how to defend him self if some one or any one around him attacked. This constant thought about
defense made him a champion martial artist. I never condone child abuse. But I also know that it is necessary to
protect a child even if they don’t like it. I if a child wants a knife and I take it a way and he cries I don’t
care. I am not worried if the kid is offended by not being able to play with a knife. My post was referring to
society’s ignorant belief that disciplining a child is wrong and abuse. This is not true. To not incorporate
structure and strict discipline in a child’s life leads to a nonproductive and criminally minded adult. Every child
I grew up with who had parents that would not discipline them have became criminals and have low morals and ethics.
They never were taught that there is a code of conduct. They don’t now and have never respected any one. They only
want to serve their own selfish needs. Their actions are a result of their desires and wants. They have no
structure now and no direction in there life. This child probably has a parent like this and they have neglected
their child. They have not broken the chain of abuse and this child that was zapped will also grow up to abuse his
children. Also for the comment about how they could get close enough to zap the kid yet could not subdue him. I
think the machine used was the type that shoots two barbs with wires attached. This type works up to 20 feet or so.
The earlier post of mine was only to serve as an informative post as to the kind of tool used on this child, the
latter actually referred to the need to train mentally to deal with bad situations. In school there are fire
drills. In life we should think about how to deal with problems. From bad children to domestic terrorism and
catastrophes, they all have to be dealt with. Thanks to the people on 9/11 who sacrificed them selves to bring down
the plain and save more people than were lost. Some one put together a plan and implemented it. Doc, Thanks I am a
big fan of yours. I love to be here and am glad to be challenged by you. This is democracy at its best. God bless
the U.S.A. and our freedom to engage in intellectual conversation. Thanks for Pheros and I will get another one
before it is gone.
HK45Mark23
Man Dies After Deputies Use Stun
Gun
METAIRIE, La. (Dec. 4) - A man sheriff's deputies had shot twice with a stun gun died Saturday, a day
after he was pulled over for driving erratically, officials said.
AP
Taser stun gun
Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office spokesman John Fortunato said Patrick Fleming died at a hospital. Officers
had used a Taser stun gun on him twice when he fought with them - once after the traffic stop and then later at the
jail.
Fortunato said Fleming, 35, was hospitalized after officers zapped him a second time and his breathing
became labored.
Fortunato said the office would have no further comment Saturday. There was no immediate word
on when an autopsy would be conducted to determine the cause of death.
A records check found that Fleming was
wanted on a charge of criminal neglect of family. Fleming also had a history of resisting arrest and arrests for
possession of coca leaves, crack cocaine and marijuana.
Amnesty International reported last week that at
least 74 people have died in the United States and Canada in the past four years after being shocked with stun guns
manufactured by Taser International Inc. The company has defended its product, saying in the majority of
Taser-related fatalities, coroners have attributed the cause of death to heart problems, drug overdose or
asphyxiation.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.