|
eulero83 -> RE: 19 yr old tagger, tazed, died, do you care? (8/11/2013 4:36:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thishereboi
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
the kid had avoided contact for the whole chasing,
.
If I was alone I don't know if I used the taser or not in that situation, probably only if the person I was chasing was bigger than me, but overnumbering I would for sure stepped back so my colleague could takle from flanks. Does it put me in danger? I think remotely but anyway for me this would be my duty instead using a painfull and dangerouse weapon.
I'm going to type this slowly so you can understand it.
He was running toward the cop (otherwise, he would have taken the shot in the ass not the chest)
It was dark.
Does that put you in danger? Damn right it does because it's DARK and you don't know what is in his hands.
Ever been cut with a knife? I have. Being cut superficially isn't that bad, the healing is a bitch. Taking one in the guts I have heard is anywhere from excruciating to fatal.
With the effective range of a tazer (under 20 feet) you have a half second to act.
The decedent was committing a crime (stupid decision #1)
The decedent led the cops on a long foot chase (stupid decision #2)
He then ran AT the officers instead of giving up (stupid decision #3)
Strike 1
Strike 2
Strike 3 He's out and chalk another one up for Darwin.
Never give the other guy an even chance if you want to go home to your family.
I understood what your point is, it's just I don't agree with that.
I told you what I would have done in that situation, do you think I'm stupid for that? fine, maybe I am.
Is it what I told the behaviour my culture and the law I live under require in this situation? yes, so for me it's natural to see it this way.
You did tell us what you would do. You said you would step back and let your colleague take care of it. And then you go on to tell us that you would do that because that is what your culture and law require. So if everyone in your group is following that same thought and you all step back and let someone else handle it, who is actually going to stand up and deal with the situation?
You didn't understood what I meant, maybe I haven't used the proper words, if someone charges has less controll on his boody than a person that stands if you move in the opposite direction at an almost equal speed you can control the distance and someway fool him as he will expose himself, as this was not a rugby match where is considered no fairplay to pass the ball to avoid a tackle than in that situation I would have kept controlling the boy from his fron but avoiding contact while my other colleagues could just grab him from the sides, it's not cowardice just an alternative way that doesn't involve tazing, it's what a torero does in a corrida or a fencer does in an assoult or what you do in judo, you move back to exploit your opponent, so the half second that hillwilliam extimated will get 2 or 3 seconds where you can also gain control.
Than what is the legal system in my country you can react only to actual threats and not presumed so the: "it was night so he may or may not have a knife or gun" concept doesn't work, it works this way can you see a weapon? if yes ok use yours if no then is him a danger for a third party safety having a violent behaviour? yes ok use your weapon, no then suspect safety is police officer concern and has to continue the chase untill he can grab the suspect without risks for him and the suspect or a third party, in this case the threat to safety was just presumed as he was not drawing any weapon and he was not involved in a violent crime and since that moment ran away, and by the way the concept that so called antisocial behaviour indicate a danger for people safety is something i connect much more with DDR and USSR.
|
|
|
|
