attn police and citizens

[LT80]

OK, your kids wreck the quad. Both riders w/head injurys and passed out in the middle of the road.
One kid wakes up jumps on the quad and goes to get help, After leaving, he notices the ambulance/police and returns.
He rides around the ambulance and the EMT opens the door right in front of hio and the kid whacks the door.
So the cops get an attitude and there is a fight break out. At that point in time, they handcuff and hog tie the kid. THEN the cops spray mace in the kids face.

1) I understand why they cuffed the kid.
2) The kid had a brain injury and was obviously out of his head durring all this. He don't remember anything.

I'm thinking the cops were out of bounds spraying the kid AFTER being cuffed and hog tied.
Your opinions please.
Thank you!

[wishmasstir]

seems excessive but i can understand why cops do stuff like that, its their life they have to protect. but after being tied up, i dont think it was needed.

did they end up helping the other kid?

[LT80]

The other kid took a helicopter ride (5k worth)
FYI: both are fine.:)

[mxdad]

Seems very excessive if the boy was already restrained.

Glad they are both ok.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by mxdad
Seems very excessive if the boy was already restrained.

Glad they are both ok.

I agree.

I had a friend who is a city cop in washington tell me that mace is the new nightstick:p IMO, if a suspect is cuffed and his ability to inflict harm to officers is incapacitated, then any use of force from that point forward is excessive and unwarranted.

(as a side note, ive dealt out some justice after the fact but i am not a cop..lol)

[ckasper18]

I guess you would have to be there to see the situation but yes that is wrong.

[LT80]

What I've stated is what eye witnesses told me.
When I got there, he indeed was cuffed and hog tied and couldn't see. figured that out eh..
Thanks for your time. :)

Alot of peole who have never put their life on the line the way cops do seem to think they understand what it is to lay your life on the line for less than $40K per year.

I'm not saying cops can do anything they want.

But I hear stuff like this border incident, and people calling two cops firing 14 rounds at a suspect "excessive."

People like that don't realize how fast 7 rounds come out of a gun under stress.

They also don't realize that the adrenaline necessary to perform as a cop in a life or death situation is NOT something you turn on and more importantly OFF like a light switch.

My take? Mess with the bull, don't be mad at the bull when it gives ya the horn.

[Pappy]

garandman...are you talking about the guy the border patrol chased, and when he bailed out and ran they fired at him? then he turned up in the back in the states with a lwayer and is sueing the police for shooting him while he was unarmed?

Originally posted by Pappy
garandman...are you talking about the guy the border patrol chased, and when he bailed out and ran they fired at him? then he turned up in the back in the states with a lwayer and is sueing the police for shooting him while he was unarmed?

Yes, that's the incident I am referring to, but only in the sense that 14 rounds can come out of two handguns in less than three seconds. (A couple years ago there was the Amadou Diallo case as well)

Some people call that "excessive."

I call it "just warming up."

To this thread, it seems looking at it WAY too clinically to say "He was restrained, mace was excessive."

[Pappy]

You dont think firing at an unarmed man fleeing is excessive?

[jcv400ex]

If he was maced after being tied up, then yes that is excessive force.

I've always said, if someone shoots a gun at me un-armed, they better be a good shot. Once I get my gun and come back.......it's on.

[smr]

Originally posted by garandman
Alot of peole who have never put their life on the line the way cops do seem to think they understand what it is to lay your life on the line for less than $40K per year.

I'm not saying cops can do anything they want.

But I hear stuff like this border incident, and people calling two cops firing 14 rounds at a suspect "excessive."

People like that don't realize how fast 7 rounds come out of a gun under stress.

They also don't realize that the adrenaline necessary to perform as a cop in a life or death situation is NOT something you turn on and more importantly OFF like a light switch.

My take? Mess with the bull, don't be mad at the bull when it gives ya the horn.


I agree with you 100%


Pappy...to answer your question. No....it's not. Matt Dillion said it best, "don't be stupid"

[Pappy]

Originally posted by smr


Pappy...to answer your question. Yes. Matt Dillion said it best, "don't be stupid"

so your kid brother panicks and runs after fleeing from the local police and they kill him. your ok with that? He was stupid enough to run, so its ok to shoot him in the back unarmed?( i believe the mentioned guy in this thread was actually a drug dealer but he was unarmed and running away)

(not that I condone running from the police, but I do believe there are limits as to when justifiable use of deadly force is to be used)


(I see you edited your answr)

[smr]

Originally posted by Pappy
so your kid brother panicks and runs after fleeing from the local police and they kill him. your ok with that? He was stupid enough to run, so its ok to shoot him in the back unarmed?( i believe the mentioned guy in this thread was actually a drug dealer but he was unarmed and running away)

(not that I condone running from the police, but I do believe there are limits as to when justifiable use of deadly force is to be used)


(I see you edited your answr)

Yes...it wouldn't take long and people would not run anymore. Just think about how many lives they would have saved if they could have taken him out.

I have a twelve year old son and he knows the best way for him to get into trouble is to not respect authority. To many parants now days don't teach there kids to respect authority. I say...weed them out. It wouldn't take long and people would stop running.

[bwamos]

Originally posted by Pappy
so your kid brother panicks and runs after fleeing from the local police and they kill him. your ok with that? He was stupid enough to run, so its ok to shoot him in the back unarmed?( i believe the mentioned guy in this thread was actually a drug dealer but he was unarmed and running away)

(not that I condone running from the police, but I do believe there are limits as to when justifiable use of deadly force is to be used)


(I see you edited your answr)

Yup excessive.
That's what the German Shepards are for. ;)
Let him keep running.. cal the K9 units.. and once he tires out or thinks he's hiding.. let the dogs loose. ;)

[Pappy]

ok, just wanted to make sure where you stood on the issue.

jcv, if his 12 year old runs it is ok to cap him.

[Chin_Chilla]

Originally posted by Pappy
so your kid brother panicks and runs after fleeing from the local police and they kill him. your ok with that? He was stupid enough to run, so its ok to shoot him in the back unarmed?( i believe the mentioned guy in this thread was actually a drug dealer but he was unarmed and running away)

(not that I condone running from the police, but I do believe there are limits as to when justifiable use of deadly force is to be used)


(I see you edited your answr) I agree 100%.

Originally posted by Pappy
You dont think firing at an unarmed man fleeing is excessive?

Again, you are looking at this clinically, from behind the relative safety of your keyboard.

Have you ever had to defend your life?

Originally posted by Pappy
so your kid brother panicks and runs after fleeing from the local police and they kill him. your ok with that? He was stupid enough to run, so its ok to shoot him in the back unarmed?( i believe the mentioned guy in this thread was actually a drug dealer but he was unarmed and running away)



This isn't about a 12 year old kid.

This was about IIRC a dealer with 3/4 million in drugs.

If you believe he was unarmed, you are IMO being naieve.

NO drug dealer would be transporting that much smack without having a gun on him.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by garandman
Again, you are looking at this clinically, from behind the relative safety of your keyboard.

Have you ever had to defend your life?

Relative safety is correct, and policy is not derived on the battle field. It(being our rights) is written into law so that we as free men have nothing to fear from law enforcement, including being shot in the back.


Yes, I have had to defend my life with my bare hands and with the firepower from my weapon, how about you?

[Pappy]

Originally posted by garandman
This isn't about a 12 year old kid.

This was about IIRC a dealer with 3/4 million in drugs.

If you believe he was unarmed, you are IMO being naieve.

NO drug dealer would be transporting that much smack without having a gun on him.

This is about anyone being fired on that is unarmed and fleeing, age is of no consequence.

Naive? Do you think your arguement will go over well to a jury? This is not an issue of the suspect having drugs, it is about him being shot in the *** running away.

I did not know you were a drug dealer and had so much insight into what they use when transporting drugs. Infact, MOST dealers caught are charged with possesion of drugs but not charged with a weapons charge. Go look up public records and you will find this to be fact not fiction.

[tim colston]

Originally posted by Pappy

Yes, I have had to defend my life with my bare hands and with the firepower from my weapon, how about you?

I know this is a long shot but you have got me interested. :eek2:

Originally posted by Pappy
Relative safety is correct, and policy is not derived on the battle field. It(being our rights) is written into law so that we as free men have nothing to fear from law enforcement, including being shot in the back.


Yes, I have had to defend my life with my bare hands and with the firepower from my weapon, how about you?

Yes, I have. And the adrenaline my body produced under teh circumstances was hard to turn off.

Chances are the moment the scum drug dealer was shot he was in between the drivers door of the van, and the back door of the van. Reasonable to assume he was going for a gun.

I don't beleive police should have to wait to find out.

"Running away" can just as easily be running to get a gun.

This drug dealer is HARDLY the noble "free man" that you are trying to shoe horn into this discussion. He committed at least one felony, and was in the act of violating our borders.

Originally posted by Pappy


Naive? Do you think your arguement will go over well to a jury? This is not an issue of the suspect having drugs, it is about him being shot in the *** running away.

Juries are comprised of the least educated, least capable, least knomlegeable, least competent people in our society.

Like I said above - "running away" is one interpretation. "Running to grab a gun" is another.





I did not know you were a drug dealer and had so much insight into what they use when transporting drugs.

Hey....why the ad hominem attack pal? You may be a god on this site, but that's uncalled for.

We're discussing a subject here. Such an attack is beneath dignity.

[tim colston]

Originally posted by garandman
Juries are comprised of the least educated, least capable, least knomlegeable, least competent people in our society.

Like I said above - "running away" is one interpretation. "Running to grab a gun" is another.





Hey....why the ad hominem attack pal? You may be a god on this site, but that's uncalled for.

We're discussing a subject here. Such an attack is beneath dignity.

I have read this whole thread and I didn't get that impression. It is a difference of opinion that is all. It is hard to interperate (sp) HOW people are saying things just by reading text. Calm down bro I am sure it wasn't meant with any disrespect.

Originally posted by Pappy
Infact, MOST dealers caught are charged with possesion of drugs but not charged with a weapons charge. Go look up public records and you will find this to be fact not fiction.

DEALERS carrying the weight this guy had ALMOST ALWAYS are armed.

This guy isn't some punk 12 year old with a dime bag.

In fact, he was invading this country with the intent to commit numerous felonies.

If I had things my way, it'd be open hunting season on all such vermin. EVERY U.S. citizen who owns border property could shoot on site. If I were king.

That'd clear up the illegal immigration and much of the drug trafficking problem OVERNIGHT.

Originally posted by tim colston
I have read this whole thread and I didn't get that impression. It is a difference of opinion that is all. It is hard to interperate (sp) HOW people are saying things just by reading text. Calm down bro I am sure it wasn't meant with any disrespect.

"I didn't realize you were a drug dealer" is NO different than "I didn't realize you were a child molestor."

Some things just SHOULD NOT be said.

His error, not mine.

[tim colston]

Originally posted by garandman
DEALERS carrying the weight this guy had ALMOST ALWAYS are armed.

This guy isn't some punk 12 year old with a dime bag.

In fact, he was invading this country with the intent to commit numerous felonies.

If I had things my way, it'd be open hunting season on all such vermin. EVERY U.S. citizen who owns border property could shoot on site. If I were king.

That'd clear up the illegal immigration and much of the drug trafficking problem OVERNIGHT.

If that was the case they would call it Amexico. As bad as the illegals situation you just can't declare marshal law and start killing everyone that comes across the border. That is why they are coming to america, other that jobs, is for the rights and not to be ruled by a corrupt dictatorship.

[Pappy]

garandman, my issue is or wasnt with you on a personal level, however asking if i had ever had to defend myself is akin to asking if you were a drug dealer. in order to know what goes on in both scenarioes, one must have some knowledge. It is also enlightening to see you single handedly can correct the Jury system.


and your justifying a POLICE officer to shoot any unarmed person in the back is ludicris, no matter if he was Americas most wanted! And I believe the fellow we are discussing is an American citizen with all the rights so afforded.


I will gladly take this any way you would like, just be sure to pack a lunch.

Originally posted by tim colston
If that was the case they would call it Amexico. As bad as the illegals situation you just can't declare marshal law and start killing everyone that comes across the border. That is why they are coming to america, other that jobs, is for the rights and not to be ruled by a corrupt dictatorship.


Riiiighttt.... they're such noble people....that they break US laws to get away from corruption..... and they are so intersted in "rights" that they violate the US Constitution that enumerates those rights.

And they are SOO offended by the state of affairs in Mexico, they come up here and fly their Mexican flags while protesting in the streets and demanding they be given US citizenship.

:rolleyes:

Dude.... no offense, but that's pretty clueless.

Originally posted by Pappy
garandman, my issue is or wasnt with you on a personal level, however asking if i had ever had to defend myself is akin to asking if you were a drug dealer. in order to know what goes on in both scenarioes, one must have some knowledge.

I was simply trying to ascertain if you've ever experienced the adrenaline dump of a life or death situation, the way these border agents did.

And your logic doesn't track. I don't have to commit suicide to know that its a killer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Nor do I have to BE a drug dealer to know their modus operandi.

It was stupid comment you made. Just apologize, and quit trying to justify it.




It is also enlightening to see you single handedly can correct the Jury system.

Where are you getting that from? I merely pointed out the obvious problems. How about limiting yourself to things I cactually say?



and your justifying a POLICE officer to shoot any unarmed person in the back is ludicris, no matter if he was Americas most wanted! And I believe the fellow we are discussing is an American citizen with all the rights so afforded.

How many times are gotta say it?

He was committing numerous felonies.

"Running away" is JUST as easily "running to get a gun."

Newsflash to criminals - make a fast move around a LEO, you get shot.




I will gladly take this any way you would like, just be sure to pack a lunch.

:rolleyes: Your comment just gave me a flashback to seventh grade. :rolleyes:

[cop292]

A fleeing felon is different from a kid that bails out of a car on a traffic stop. Let me ask this question: What if you were to come home and find a man attacking, raping, or killing one of your family members. He sees you and runs out the back door UNARMED. You have a gun, what would you do? If a cop locates a serial murder suspect, scuffles with him and the serial murderer is getting away, what should the cop do?

Now back to the original post: IF the person WAS already restrained, I do not see a reason to mace him. However, I wasnt there. If the cops were TRYING to restrain him and he was fighting, the cops had every right to mace him.

Believe it or not, most cops don't really want to "Kick *** and take names". We just try to go home at the end of our shift in the same condition we started it.

Just my opinion, feel free to bash!

[Pappy]

Originally posted by garandman
I was simply trying to ascertain if you've ever experienced the adrenaline dump of a life or death situation, the way these border agents did.

And your logic doesn't track. I don;t have to commit suicide to know that its a killer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



Where are you getting that from? I merely pointed out the obvious problems. How about limiting yourself to things I cactually say?



How many times are gotta say it?

He was committing numerous felonies.

"Running away" is JUST as easily "running to get a gun."

Newsflash to criminals - make a fast move around a LEO, you get shot.



:rolleyes: Your comment just gave me a flashback to seventh grade. :rolleyes:

I can see this is a battle of wits and you came unarmed. Let me know when human dignity and common sense return when your juvinile blood pressure rant has subsided.

Originally posted by cop292
Now back to the original post: IF the person WAS already restrained, I do not see a reason to mace him. However, I wasnt there. If the cops were TRYING to restrain him and he was fighting, the cops had every right to mace him.

Believe it or not, most cops don't really want to "Kick *** and take names". We just try to go home at the end of our shift in the same condition we started it.

Just my opinion, feel free to bash!

That's my view.

Somehow, I've managed to NEVER get cuffed, or maced, or beat down by the police.

The real question here is when the kid stopped trying to resist.

And anyone who think cuffs prevent a perp from resisting or injuring an officer just don't know what they are talking about.

Stupid hurts. Don't be stupid around the cops.

[Pappy]

Originally posted by cop292
A fleeing felon is different from a kid that bails out of a car on a traffic stop. Let me ask this question: What if you were to come home and find a man attacking, raping, or killing one of your family members. He sees you and runs out the back door UNARMED. You have a gun, what would you do? If a cop locates a serial murder suspect, scuffles with him and the serial murderer is getting away, what shoud the cop do?


What are you trained to do? What action are you LEGALLY bound to take? This is my point, not what I would LIKE to see done:p

if grandman would get back to reality he would see and know that I would love to see this vermin dead in the brush, but legality is the question.

Originally posted by Pappy
I can see this is a battle of wits and you came unarmed. Let me know when human dignity and common sense return when your juvinile blood pressure rant has subsided.



Whateva, dude.

:macho

Originally posted by Pappy


if grandman would get back to reality he would see and know that I would love to see this vermin dead in the brush, but legality is the question.

Stupid laws should be changed. That fact that something is the "law" does not make it right.


Furthermore, making a rapid movement around a cop is NOT a smart call.

The ironic part is you take the felons word he was running away, over the word of someone who LAYS HIS LIFE ON THE LINE to protect YOU and YOUR SON from felons.

THAT is truly screwed up logic.

Actually, its just screwed up. It'd be wrong to dignify it as logic.

[Pappy]

I couldnt agree more, lets just hope "The King" isnt in charge of making the laws:chinese:

And I take "Innocent until proven Guilty" into account, this is still the United States of America and I am unwilling to relinquish my rights even if it means a drug dealer scurrys back into the desert.

[tim colston]

Originally posted by garandman
Riiiighttt.... they're such noble people....that they break US laws to get away from corruption..... and they are so intersted in "rights" that they violate the US Constitution that enumerates those rights.

And they are SOO offended by the state of affairs in Mexico, they come up here and fly their Mexican flags while protesting in the streets and demanding they be given US citizenship.

:rolleyes:

Dude.... no offense, but that's pretty clueless.

Obvioulsy you cannot be told you are wrong so I am done with you. Go shoot someone in the back. As your maturity level reflects that of a 12 yr old, I can stoop that low as well. There is no need to pack a lunch you may want to pack some extra teeth and a nose.

Originally posted by LT80
He rides around the ambulance and the EMT opens the door right in front of hio and the kid whacks the door.
So the cops get an attitude and there is a fight break out. Thank you!

So the EMT commits the heinous act of opening the meat wagon door, the kid on the ATV hits it, and THE COP is the one with a bad attitude?

How about maybe NOT HITTING the ambulance door?

And exactly HOW is the cop supposed to divine the kid on the ATV is not some kind of meathead / crackhead?

Far as I'm concerned, if you get in the way of an EMT doing his job, the cop SHOULD give you a beat down.

The EMT is trying to save someones life. Don't smash into the ambulance with your ATV, jerk.

Originally posted by tim colston
Obvioulsy you cannot be told you are wrong so I am done with you. Go shoot someone in the back. As your maturity level reflects that of a 12 yr old, I can stoop that low as well. There is no need to pack a lunch you may want to pack some extra teeth and a nose.

Nice.

Now threats.

Real nice.

:macho

Always interesting to note you IN NO WAY addressed anything I said.

Just issued threats.

[tim colston]

Originally posted by garandman
Nice.

Now threats.

Real nice.

:macho

Always interesting to note you IN NO WAY addressed anything I said.

Just issued threats.

You want to be a dick you will get treated like a dick

Originally posted by LT80
OK, your kids wreck the quad. Both riders w/head injurys and passed out in the middle of the road.

Your opinions please.


Were they wearing helmets?

How old were the kids?

Where were the parents?

Is it legal to ride an ATV on the road?

Were they riding "two up" on one ATV?

Originally posted by tim colston
You want to be a dick you will get treated like a dick

No, those were threats.



I blew your argument out of the water, and you threatened me.

Its that simple.

[cop292]

There are still some states where a sworn law enforcement officer is allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing felon. There are many factors to consider according to the law.

I know an officer who is now retired that got into a shootout with 2 suspects, Suspect #1 (driver) did not shoot and did not show a weapon. Suspect#2 (passenger) fired at officers and fled the scene on foot, Suspect#1 got into the vehicle and drove away. The officer fired at the vehicle as it was driving away. The vehicle pulled into a lot approximately a mile away. As another officer pulled into the lot, Suspect#1 opened fire on the officer with an AR-15 assault rifle.

The officer who shot at the vehicle was disciplined by his agency for violating policy (Shooting at a fleeing vehicle)

Note: The one who fled in the vehicle was later convicted of killing a family in Arkansas as well as other crimes.

[Pappy]

garandman, you have shown everyone who reads this your opinion, and decided to allow anger to move you to the lower level of decency. you want to spout logic yet fail to follow it. your actions have me doubting anything you have stated as anything more then the meanderings of someone off thier meds. if you are indeed nearing 40, then you by now must have realized that just because someone differs in opinion in this country that they are FREE to do so.

and they wonder why i respect most of the 16 year olds on here more then some of the adults.

adding this for lt80
Please C&P the below.
I am very sad that ppl went off on anything but the question at hand. Disappointed would be a better word.
I thank the ppl that offered an opinion (there was a few).
FYI: what the lawyer said:: Yes there was excessive force. No there isn't anything to do.
It was pointed out to me that I have to live here and drive a commercial truck locally to feed my family.
Being right will have to do.
I'm glad the kid don't remember this. I guess that's the best thing.