Florida Bronco . this is how it is done [Archive] - The Orange Mane

kappys

11-24-2007, 02:18 PM

W*GS

11-24-2007, 03:19 PM

If you can't control an unarmed man one-on-one without using a weapon then you probably have no business working in law enforcement.

Interesting take. Ask your LEO friends if they agree with you. Especially those who are women.

broncocalijohn

11-24-2007, 04:39 PM

Interesting take. Ask your LEO friends if they agree with you. Especially those who are women.

Hey, you have to have different standards for minorities. Regardless of public safety, we need a quota for women, blacks and whoever needs protection from "discrimination" regardless of the citizens' safety. A tazer is used so a police officer doesnt have to take the chance of getting hurt or killed in the line of duty. Maybe cops need karate and wrestling as part of their curiculum for working on the beat. The best line is when someone dies from a taser and they want to end the practice. Sure, we can always do it the old way and pull out a handgun to get the job done. I would always say use as a secondary response but it is better than the alternative for the suspect/"victim".

Spider

11-24-2007, 04:44 PM

Hey, you have to have different standards for minorities. Regardless of public safety, we need a quota for women, blacks and whoever needs protection from "discrimination" regardless of the citizens' safety. A tazer is used so a police officer doesnt have to take the chance of getting hurt or killed in the line of duty. Maybe cops need karate and wrestling as part of their curiculum for working on the beat. The best line is when someone dies from a taser and they want to end the practice. Sure, we can always do it the old way and pull out a handgun to get the job done. I would always say use as a secondary response but it is better than the alternative for the suspect/"victim".

I do think Cops need to take a course like Karate , or some other form of self defense ......Though I still think they should have the tazer ...... my problem is the Utah cop abusing his tazer the way he did

Garcia Bronco

11-24-2007, 05:28 PM

Florida_Bronco

11-24-2007, 06:48 PM

Yep.

When a cop uses a taser gun on an unarmed civilian, then either that cop hasn't been very well trained in the use of force, or he's ignoring his training. If you can't control an unarmed man one-on-one without using a weapon then you probably have no business working in law enforcement.

I was going to take you to task for this post, but then Kappy beat me to it.

I disagree entirely. If you start to resist arrest I would rather the perp get tazed and protect the cop from the risks of engaging in a struggle and getting injured himself. I like the fact that this cop attempted to arrest the drunk without the tazer but I think he took too much of a chance by attempting it 2 or 3 times. One failed attempt then tazer.

People need to remember that Cops have died from attempting to arrest someone and they get their gun taken or something like that. No matter how good you are at that, things can always happen. Using the taser is the best way of performing the arrest while providing maximum safety to the officer.

Florida_Bronco

11-24-2007, 06:51 PM

I do think Cops need to take a course like Karate , or some other form of self defense ......Though I still think they should have the tazer ...... my problem is the Utah cop abusing his tazer the way he did

What do you think they teach recruits in the academy? Sword fighting? Durrrrr :dummy:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-24-2007, 07:39 PM

I disagree entirely. If you start to resist arrest I would rather the perp get tazed and protect the cop from the risks of engaging in a struggle and getting injured himself.

But we're just talking (on TJ's thread) about a routine traffic infraction here - not a confrontation with a "perp."

Yes, cops obviously want to minimize risks, but you can go too far in that direction (that's when you have cops shooting mentally retarded kids, etc.)

If you have to use a taser on some guy just because he is arguing with you then you need to take a serious look at your people skills (to say nothing of your control issues.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-24-2007, 07:42 PM

People need to remember that Cops have died from attempting to arrest someone and they get their gun taken or something like that. No matter how good you are at that, things can always happen. Using the taser is the best way of performing the arrest while providing maximum safety to the officer.

Yes, I appreciate the need for safety and risk management, but you can go too far with these things (until your policies and procedures start to mirror Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine in microcosm.)

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-24-2007, 07:45 PM

It always amuses me the people that talk about how a cop should act and what they should do when they have no idea what the job is, the risks, and the fact that they have no idea what the intention of the suspect is.

How do you know that they have no idea what the job is?

Some of us are vets, if you recall.

Garcia Bronco

11-24-2007, 08:46 PM

How do you know that they have no idea what the job is?

Some of us are vets, if you recall.

Because they aren't police officers, and if they are...it doesn't apply.

Spider

11-24-2007, 08:58 PM

What do you think they teach recruits in the academy? Sword fighting? Durrrrr :dummy:

awwwwww so you admit that the Utah state trooper could have handled that guy without tazering ......... I knew sooner or later you would see the light

baja

11-24-2007, 09:00 PM

But we're just talking (on TJ's thread) about a routine traffic infraction here - not a confrontation with a "perp."

Yes, cops obviously want to minimize risks, but you can go too far in that direction (that's when you have cops shooting mentally retarded kids, etc.)

<b>If you have to use a taser on some guy just because he is arguing with you then you need to take a serious look at your people skills (to say nothing of your control issues.)</b>

This is the point, the young cop needlessly let the situation get out of hand and because of his lack of ability created a situtation where he needed to tazer the guy.

Northman

11-24-2007, 09:02 PM

If you have to use a taser on some guy just because he is arguing with you then you need to take a serious look at your people skills (to say nothing of your control issues.)

Thats part of the problem. When a officer of the law is asking you to stay still, take a test, put your hands behind your back you do it. End of story. Doesnt matter if you've been wrongly arrested or whatever, sort that **** out later. Sure, its no fun to be wrongly arrested but you dont start getting into a shoving match with a police officer to a point where someone could get hurt or end of up dead. I have a young cousin who is entering the police academy soon and although they can teach her self defence etc... she is still a small petite girl who could get overpowered by a "so-called" average civilian. If tazering a idiot who cant follow directions keeps her safe than by all means shock the mother****er till he learns.

Spider

11-24-2007, 09:06 PM

Thats part of the problem. When a officer of the law is asking you to stay still, take a test, put your hands behind your back you do it. End of story. Doesnt matter if you've been wrongly arrested or whatever, sort that **** out later. Sure, its no fun to be wrongly arrested but you dont start getting into a shoving match with a police officer to a point where someone could get hurt or end of up dead. I have a young cousin who is entering the police academy soon and although they can teach her self defence etc... she is still a small petite girl who could get overpowered by a "so-called" average civilian. If tazering a idiot who cant follow directions keeps her safe than by all means shock the mother****er till he learns.

read TJ thread Tazer nation , the cops in this thread did it right ............I created this thread so Fla Bronco could see the difference in a routine traffic stop and dealing with bad people ......

Northman

11-24-2007, 09:09 PM

read TJ thread Tazer nation , the cops in this thread did it right ............I created this thread so Fla Bronco could see the difference in a routine traffic stop and dealing with bad people ......

Ill have to take a look at that thread. Have not read that one yet.

Florida_Bronco

11-24-2007, 10:44 PM

But we're just talking (on TJ's thread) about a routine traffic infraction here - not a confrontation with a "perp."

Yes, cops obviously want to minimize risks, but you can go too far in that direction (that's when you have cops shooting mentally retarded kids, etc.)

If you have to use a taser on some guy just because he is arguing with you then you need to take a serious look at your people skills (to say nothing of your control issues.)

But that cop didn't taser a guy who was arguing with him, he tasered a guy who was resisting arrest. Big difference.

Florida_Bronco

11-24-2007, 10:46 PM

awwwwww so you admit that the Utah state trooper could have handled that guy without tazering ......... I knew sooner or later you would see the light

That's cute Spider.

Your childness aside, the cop probably could have just restrained that man, but why take the risk of such a confrontation and the possible consequences?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-25-2007, 09:39 AM

But that cop didn't taser a guy who was arguing with him, he tasered a guy who was resisting arrest. Big difference.

The driver (on TJ's thread) wasn't resisting arrest - he simply refused to sign a traffic citation.

As the exchange escalated, the subject, who was unarmed, merely became argumentative - at no time did he become verbally abusive, belligerent, physically threatening, or violent.

The level of force used was disproportionate to the "threat" posed by the subject.

Spider

11-25-2007, 09:47 AM

That's cute Spider.

Your childness aside, the cop probably could have just restrained that man, but why take the risk of such a confrontation and the possible consequences?

I forgot , you are the same guy that said he would pull a gun on another guy cause you was scared ****less of a physical confrontation ............ Cowards shouldnt be cops ......

Florida_Bronco

11-25-2007, 01:07 PM

The driver (on TJ's thread) wasn't resisting arrest - he simply refused to sign a traffic citation.

Say what?!? Are you friggin stupid or did you just not watch the video? ???

The cop pulled the suspect from his vehicle, went to place him under arrest and which point the man began to walk away. Walking away from a cop trying to place you under arrest is resisting arrest. If you don't understand that, maybe you should sit down and get familar with a law book or something.

As the exchange escalated, the subject, who was unarmed, merely became argumentative - at no time did he become verbally abusive, belligerent, physically threatening, or violent.

The level of force used was disproportionate to the "threat" posed by the subject.

You need to go back to TJ's thread and take a look at the use of force spectrum that I posted. Resisting arrest pretty much allows the police to use anything short of deadly force to perform such arrest.

Florida_Bronco

11-25-2007, 01:08 PM

I forgot , you are the same guy that said he would pull a gun on another guy cause you was scared ****less of a physical confrontation ............ Cowards shouldnt be cops ......

It's all about making minimal risk for yourself, not too hard to understand if you try.

Spider

11-25-2007, 01:12 PM

It's all about making minimal risk for yourself, not too hard to understand if you try.

save it cupcake , perhaps you should become a rock and roll band groupie .... lot less danger

Florida_Bronco

11-25-2007, 01:14 PM

save it cupcake , perhaps you should become a rock and roll band groupie .... lot less danger

Yeah but then I wouldn't get to taser people. :thumbsup:

Spider

11-25-2007, 01:19 PM

Yeah but then I wouldn't get to taser people. :thumbsup:

LOL sure you would ........go into Security :welcome:

Florida_Bronco

11-25-2007, 01:31 PM

LOL sure you would ........go into Security :welcome:

But they only get those weak little tasers that you have to press against people. I want the big 50,000 volt monsters that actually shoot the diodes (sp?) at people. 8')

Spider

11-25-2007, 01:36 PM

But they only get those weak little tasers that you have to press against people. I want the big 50,000 volt monsters that actually shoot the diodes (sp?) at people. 8')

;D I wonder if you could hook one up to a car battery ....... nevermind , my Tim Allen side is coming through

Spider

11-25-2007, 01:37 PM

we used to use Hot shots aka cattle prods on each other when I was bull rackin ... those damn things hurt like hell

Florida_Bronco

11-25-2007, 01:59 PM

;D I wonder if you could hook one up to a car battery ....... nevermind , my Tim Allen side is coming through

You say that like it's a bad thing. Tim Allen is every man's hero. One of the greatest shows ever! :notworthy

Spider

11-25-2007, 02:01 PM

You say that like it's a bad thing. Tim Allen is every man's hero. One of the greatest shows ever! :notworthy

LOL my wife isnt as understanding as Jill is

Florida_Bronco

11-25-2007, 02:18 PM

LOL my wife isnt as understanding as Jill is

Well she just needs to be trained better. :thumbsup:

Spider

11-25-2007, 02:26 PM

Well she just needs to be trained better. :thumbsup:

ROFL! . yeah she does ......

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-25-2007, 08:46 PM

Walking away from a cop trying to place you under arrest is resisting arrest.

This still doesn't justify tasering an unarmed suspect who was not acting in a physically or verbally threatening manner. The cop simply exposed himself as a physical coward with some serious control issues. He was not responding to a threat to his personal safety or acting in self-defense.

You need to go back to TJ's thread and take a look at the use of force spectrum that I posted.

The use of force definitions you posted are not universal, i.e., are not the only accepted definitions.

Resisting arrest pretty much allows the police to use anything short of deadly force to perform such arrest.

It's policies like these that make Rodney King-type incidents possible.

Ask any elite security or law enforcement agency (military or civilain) and you'll be advised that using the least amount of force necessary to accomplish the task at hand is always a high priority.

Florida_Bronco

11-26-2007, 10:16 AM

This still doesn't justify tasering an unarmed suspect who was not acting in a physically or verbally threatening manner. The cop simply exposed himself as a physical coward with some serious control issues. He was not responding to a threat to his personal safety or acting in self-defense.

Yes, it does. Resisting arrest means the officer can use force to perform that arrest, as happened here.

The use of force definitions you posted are not universal, i.e., are not the only accepted definitions. I didn't post definitions, I posted the use of force spectrum. Maybe you should actually go read that this time.

It's policies like these that make Rodney King-type incidents possible.

Ask any elite security or law enforcement agency (military or civilain) and you'll be advised that using the least amount of force necessary to accomplish the task at hand is always a high priority.

LABF, I'm friends with (and have even pursued employment with) people in the Tampa Police Department, Pinellas, Hillsborough and Broward County Sheriffs Department. Those are 4 of the most respected law enforcement agencies in the state. I could show this video to any of them and I'm sure that I'd get answers along the same lines of what I've posted here.

Let's try this LABF. You tell me how you would have handled it starting from the point the officer pulled the suspect from the vehicle and decided to perform an arrest. That should be good. LOL

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-26-2007, 10:42 AM

Yes, it does. Resisting arrest means the officer can use force to perform that arrest, as happened here.

Can doesn't mean should.

The point is that the degree of force used (in the video on TJ's thread) was disproportionate to the threat (or lack thereof) posed by the suspect.

LABF, I'm friends with (and have even pursued employment with) people in the Tampa Police Department, Pinellas, Hillsborough and Broward County Sheriffs Department. Those are 4 of the most respected law enforcement agencies in the state. I could show this video to any of them and I'm sure that I'd get answers along the same lines of what I've posted here.

Yes, I'm sure you can find cops (especially in trigger happy Florida) who will back the guy in TJ's video - that would be no surprise (just like you can find cops who believe the Rodney King beating was fully justified.)

However, fact is, whether you're talking about rules of engagement in warfare or law enforcement, those methods which produce the greatest results with the least amount of force are always preferable and superior (from an energy conservation standpoint and from the standpoint of the warrior code.)

Let's try this LABF. You tell me how you would have handled it starting from the point the officer pulled the suspect from the vehicle and decided to perform an arrest. That should be good. LOL

I already did this, but I'll recap/elaborate:

The policy is bad. That is, there is absolutely no reason why anyone - either police officers or civilians - should have to get hurt in a traffic stop (except in those cases where a suspect is actually assultive or behaving in a threatening manner toward an officer.)

If a subject refuses to sign a traffic citation then don't arrest him or engage him in a power struggle - just mail the f*@king ticket to him! (If he refuses to answer the summons or fails to appear in court, then you issue a warrant for his arrest.)

In the event that you can't change the policy, you can train cops like the one in TJ's video to use their brain power more effectively and to be better at psy ops.

Florida_Bronco

11-26-2007, 10:52 AM

Can doesn't mean should.

The point is that the degree of force used (in the video on TJ's thread) was disproportionate to the threat (or lack thereof) posed by the suspect.

BUT the point still stands the officer acted within the realm of the law. That's all that needed to be said.

However, fact is, whether you're talking about rules of engagement in warfare or law enforcement, those methods which produce the greatest results with the least amount of force are always preferable and superior (from an energy conservation standpoint and from the standpoint of the warrior code.)

Going by that, wouldn't using the taser (which prevents wrestling with the suspect, ensures officer safety and conserves energy) be the best move?

I already did this, but I'll recap/elaborate:

The policy is bad. That is, there is absolutely no reason why anyone - either police officers or civilians - should have to get hurt in a traffic stop (except in those cases where a suspect is actually assultive or behaving in a threatening manner toward an officer.)

If a subject refuses to sign a traffic citation then don't arrest him or engage him in a power struggle - just mail the f*@king ticket to him! (If he refuses to answer the summons or fails to appear in court, then you issue a warrant for his arrest.)

In the event that you can't change the policy, you can train cops like the one in TJ's video to use their brain power more effectively and to be better at psy ops.

You're avoiding the question LABF. I asked you what you would do from the point the officer decided to remove the man from the vehicle and arrest him. I want you to answer that question.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-26-2007, 11:12 AM

BUT the point still stands the officer acted within the realm of the law. That's all that needed to be said.

Not at all.

You can and should question the law or policy and evaluate it on an ongoing basis.

Going by that, wouldn't using the taser (which prevents wrestling with the suspect, ensures officer safety and conserves energy) be the best move?

No, because it doesn't ensure the suspect's safety (remember - we're talking about a guy who merely refused to sign a traffic ticket here - not a belligerent drunk or a dangerous perp.) If the cop doesn't know how to physically take down and subdue the suspect one-on-one with minimal effort and with minimal risk to both the suspect and himself then he needs more/better training.

You're avoiding the question LABF. I asked you what you would do from the point the officer decided to remove the man from the vehicle and arrest him. I want you to answer that question.

But that's the wrong question, IMO. You should be asking what's wrong witrh the policy/procedure, or "how can I avoid power struggles and avoid escalating conflicts with civilians?"

It's doubtful whether the cop in TJ's video has any business being a police officer.

From the moment he started arguing with the suspect, everything about him - from his voice tone to his body language - screamed "I'm insecure and impotent! I'm not in control of either myself or this situation!" He overcompensated by becomming too agitated and by escalating the conflict.

A more confident and/or better-trained officer would have been able to use superior communication skills to handle the situation, and the outcome would have been different, IMO.

Florida_Bronco

11-26-2007, 01:15 PM

Not at all.

You can and should question the law or policy and evaluate it on an ongoing basis. That's another discussion. Right now we are talking about the officers actions. We've already determined that under current Utah law the officer was in the right.

No, because it doesn't ensure the suspect's safety (remember - we're talking about a guy who merely refused to sign a traffic ticket here - not a belligerent drunk or a dangerous perp.) If the cop doesn't know how to physically take down and subdue the suspect one-on-one with minimal effort and with minimal risk to both the suspect and himself then he needs more/better training.

Coming from someone who is entering the law enforcement field, once someone breaks a law to that extent (ie resisting arrest) then the officer's safety comes first and foremost then the suspects.

But that's the wrong question, IMO. You should be asking what's wrong witrh the policy/procedure, or "how can I avoid power struggles and avoid escalating conflicts with civilians?"

It's doubtful whether the cop in TJ's video has any business being a police officer.

From the moment he started arguing with the suspect, everything about him - from his voice tone to his body language - screamed "I'm insecure and impotent! I'm not in control of either myself or this situation!" He overcompensated by becomming too agitated and by escalating the conflict.

A more confident and/or better-trained officer would have been able to use superior communication skills to handle the situation, and the outcome would have been different, IMO.

I'm asking you what you would have done differently from the moment the officer decided to perform an arrest. I am asking you that and that alone.

And for the record, the cop seemed plenty in control to me. He didn't seem to debate with the suspect, get drawn into an argument and when he decided to perform the arrest he did it quick and with little effort. Seemed pretty decisive and in control to me.

Bronco Bob

11-26-2007, 01:46 PM

Coming from someone who is entering the law enforcement field, once someone breaks a law to that extent (ie resisting arrest) then the officer's safety comes first and foremost then the suspects.

I thought the purpose of the police was to protect the public.
If the only purpose of the police is to protect themselves,
might as well declare martial law and let the army run things.

defenseman

11-26-2007, 03:40 PM

That's another discussion. Right now we are talking about the officers actions. We've already determined that under current Utah law the officer was in the right.

Coming from someone who is entering the law enforcement field, once someone breaks a law to that extent (ie resisting arrest) then the officer's safety comes first and foremost then the suspects.

I'm asking you what you would have done differently from the moment the officer decided to perform an arrest. I am asking you that and that alone.

And for the record, the cop seemed plenty in control to me. He didn't seem to debate with the suspect, get drawn into an argument and when he decided to perform the arrest he did it quick and with little effort. Seemed pretty decisive and in control to me.

You are wasting your time Florida. If some posters here on the mane had their way, criminals would be the only people in the US to have guns and all incarceration facilities would be run by the inmates, let alone nearly all "criminals" would get off on technicalities. You are wasting your breath...dman

Bronco Bob

11-26-2007, 04:42 PM

You are wasting your time Florida. If some posters here on the mane had their way, criminals would be the only people in the US to have guns and all incarceration facilities would be run by the inmates, let alone nearly all "criminals" would get off on technicalities. You are wasting your breath...dman

That's quite a leap, to go from objecting to some cops abusing their authority
to trying to claim that people want to throw open all the jails and free all
the criminals.

Why is it that the only way some people here on the OM think they can win
an argument is by creating straw men?

Name me one person here on the OM that says only criminals should have guns.

Name me one person here on the OM that says the inmates should be running the prisons.

And specify what you mean by technicalities. Do you mean, for example,
people who have been let out of prison after DNA tests showed they
couldn't have possibly committed the crime they were convicted of?
Technicalities like that?

Florida_Bronco

11-26-2007, 05:01 PM

I thought the purpose of the police was to protect the public.
If the only purpose of the police is to protect themselves,
might as well declare martial law and let the army run things.

That is correct, however I said that when dealing with a criminal then the officer's safety comes first and foremost. An officer needs to be ready willing and able to sacrifice his life if needed for the law abiding citzens of this country. However, when dealing with those who break the law, the officers primary concern should be to the law abiding public, himself and THEN the criminal.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

11-26-2007, 08:06 PM

We've already determined that under current Utah law the officer was in the right.

Yours is a circular argument, i.e., an argument that tries to say can = should.

Coming from someone who is entering the law enforcement field, once someone breaks a law to that extent (ie resisting arrest) then the officer's safety comes first and foremost then the suspects.

Coming from someone who worked in an elite security force in the military, the above premise, if true, still doesn't justify a disproportionate use of force.

I'm asking you what you would have done differently from the moment the officer decided to perform an arrest. I am asking you that and that alone.

I would have done my best to see that arresting the subject did not become necessary in the first place. That is, I would have calmly and politely explained why I stopped him. Once the subject started to argue, I would have remained calm and detached (i.e., would not have taken it personally) and explained the subject's options for contesting the citation in court. If the subject still refused to sign the ticket, then I would have calmly explained that the other alternative would be to place him under arrest and to take him into custody. Instead of engaging him in a power struggle, I would have appealed to his sense of reason (he wasn't drunk or under the influence) to make signing the citation seem like the least undesirable alternative.

And for the record, the cop seemed plenty in control to me. He didn't seem to debate with the suspect, get drawn into an argument...

Then you must be watching a different video than the one on TJ's thread. Go back and check the cop's voice tone and body language.

...and when he decided to perform the arrest he did it quick and with little effort. Seemed pretty decisive and in control to me.

With little effort? In control? Are you kidding me? Look at all the times he had to stop what he was doing to get the suspect's wife back in the vehicle. The guy looked like an amateur.

Bronco Bob

11-27-2007, 10:21 AM

That is correct, however I said that when dealing with a criminal then the officer's safety comes first and foremost.

So now a guy stopped for a minor traffic offense is considered a criminal?
No wonder cops are so trigger happy if that's the attitude they have towards
the people paying their salaries. Like I said, might as well declare martial
law then and put the army in charge of suppressing the population if
all we are is sheep for the authorities to abuse.