A blind stroke victim said he thought he was going to die when he was shot in the back with a 50,000-volt Taser stun gun by a police officer who mistook his white stick for a Samurai sword.
Colin Farmer, 61, collapsed to the ground in shock and believed he was having another stroke which could prove fatal.
The police blunder happened as reports were received of a man walking through the town centre of Chorley, Lancashire, with the martial arts weapon.
Meanwhile, Mr Farmer, who has suffered two strokes and walks at a "snail's pace", was on his way to the pub to meet friends for a drink and did not realise anything was afoot.
Mr Farmer said he heard shouting on the street but did not know what it was about and thought he was going to be attacked by "some hooligans".
He was then struck by the Taser and fell to the ground in Peter Street, and dropped his white stick on the floor, before a policeman handcuffed him.
When the mistake was realised he was taken to Chorley Hospital for treatment and was later released. The incident happened at about 5.45pm last Friday.
Speaking to ITV Granada Reports, he said: "I was just walking along and I just heard some men shouting really angrily and I thought I'm going to get mugged. So I didn't know any police were here. The Taser hit me in the back and it started sending all these thousands of volts through me and I was terrified. I mean I had two strokes already caused by stress. When these volts were going through me I dropped the stick involuntarily and I collapsed on the floor face down."
He added: "I was shaking and I thought 'I'm going to have another stroke any second and this one is going to kill me. I'm being killed. I'm being killed'."
Lancashire Police apologised to Mr Farmer for the "traumatic experience" but confirmed the officer who fired the Taser has not been suspended and remains on duty. Mr Farmer says he is taking legal action against the force and wants the officer involved charged with assault.
It might be just me, but I'd struggle to see a 2cm thick cylindrical stick without any kind of hand guard, handle, blade, or anything that constitutes a sword in any way, shape or form, and mistake it for a samurai sword. Maybe I'm just really observant like that.
Thank god this isn't an American story. Although if it was I'd guess it'd read "blind man with walking stick shot by police who 'mistook it for a weapon'". Man dies in hospital, police officer fined 12$ and given a slap on the wrist.
That being said talk about crap ass luck... The dudes already a blind double stroke victim. When it rains it pours?
shrike wrote: It might be just me, but I'd struggle to see a 2cm thick cylindrical stick without any kind of hand guard, handle, blade, or anything that constitutes a sword in any way, shape or form, and mistake it for a samurai sword. Maybe I'm just really observant like that.
Has the copper never seen a blind person with their sensing stick (or whatever the technical term is) before?
I don't see how a mistake like that could be made. A katana is a distinctively broad, shiny object that tapers off just as distinctively to a distinctive point. There are very few things that look like Katana.
I could openly carry a Katana on my hip if I felt the need to. I love the second amendment. Maryland law makes no distinction between knives and swords, which is curious.
dæl wrote: I think everyone who wanted the British Police armed should see this. I mean how difficult is it to work out that the blind, old guy is no threat?
I'm not disagreeing with you, though I would suggest that perhaps the officer in question would have proceeded with more caution if he was armed with a gun, as opposed to a 'non-lethal' weapon. He was confident that he wouldn't kill the guy, so it didn't matter as much if he made a mistake. Make sense?
dæl wrote: I think everyone who wanted the British Police armed should see this. I mean how difficult is it to work out that the blind, old guy is no threat?
I'm not disagreeing with you, though I would suggest that perhaps the officer in question would have proceeded with more caution if he was armed with a gun, as opposed to a 'non-lethal' weapon. He was confident that he wouldn't kill the guy, so it didn't matter as much if he made a mistake. Make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense, although in this instance and others involving elderly people it could very well prove lethal to use a taser. The officer should have been aware of such a risk, and if he hadn't have had a taser then would have had to resolve the situation in a more peaceful manner.
n0t_u wrote:Chavs are the reason that even though incidents like this may happen with idiots, they should still be armed nonetheless.
Or give them a police curling league.
The police don't need to be armed to deal with chavs, I can see the argument that police would need to be armed to deal with gang members, but chavs are just young idiots rather than a dangerous menace on society.
dæl wrote: I think everyone who wanted the British Police armed should see this. I mean how difficult is it to work out that the blind, old guy is no threat?
I'm not disagreeing with you, though I would suggest that perhaps the officer in question would have proceeded with more caution if he was armed with a gun, as opposed to a 'non-lethal' weapon. He was confident that he wouldn't kill the guy, so it didn't matter as much if he made a mistake. Make sense?
Yeah, it makes sense, although in this instance and others involving elderly people it could very well prove lethal to use a taser. The officer should have been aware of such a risk, and if he hadn't have had a taser then would have had to resolve the situation in a more peaceful manner.
Agreed on all points. I was merely playing devil's advocate.
Bullockist wrote: This report has me worried about the observational abilities of officers, I mean a samurai sword, it's closer to a fencing foil!
Looks like a naginata to me. Taze him bro!
A naginata is a polearm, similar to a glaive. You're thinking of a shikomizue or possibly a shirasaya.
I know what I am thinking of, Canadian. DOn't try to read my mind. You won't like what you find.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote: I don't see how a mistake like that could be made. A katana is a distinctively broad, shiny object that tapers off just as distinctively to a distinctive point. There are very few things that look like Katana.
I could openly carry a Katana on my hip if I felt the need to. I love the second amendment. Maryland law makes no distinction between knives and swords, which is curious.
I love the Second Amendment too, however it has no bearing on long straight razors.
Albatross wrote:I'm inclined to blame the old blind disabled guy, as per Dakka tradition. I suggest you do the same.
As far as we know, that heroic officer pre-emptively stopped some Zatoichi gak from going down.
Exactly. The blind samurai is among the most powerful warrior archetypes to ever exist. Being blind provides extra-sensory perception that a trained samurai can harness to perform impossible physical feats. This officer should be commended for the exemplary bravery he showed in attacking what he believed to be a blind samurai. He likely believed he was sacrificing himself in the hope that his attack would weaken the blind samurai enough for several hundred other officers to subdue the blind samurai before he killed the Queen (which is the only reason I can conceive for a blind samurai in feudal Japan to go through the bother of becoming immortal, traveling the world, and transferring his soul, or ki, into the husk of an elderly caucasian stroke victim).
Until it can be shown that the police officer did not believe himself in danger of decapitation in defense of the Queen of England, I am 100% in support of Officer McTazemebro's actions.
My wife bought me one of those as a present. I think she wants me to get tazed!
On a more serious note. I personally think Tazers allow officers to escalate things way to easily. If they had the choice of Billy Club or Gun, the officer would have spent more time considering his action before acting. Tazers just make it way to easy for a cop to Taze someone for little or no reason. Then, since it is "non-lethal" not really have to worry too much about the consequences of the decision to Taze.
So if you close your eyes, you can't tell the difference between police officers and street thugs? And if you open them, you can't tell the difference between a white stick and a katana?
Manchu wrote: So if you close your eyes, you can't tell the difference between police officers and street thugs? And if you open them, you can't tell the difference between a white stick and a katana?
Yes
Except one of them has an actual impairment, unless you consider being a Gamma semi-moron an impairment.
n0t_u wrote:At least get it right. See even comes with a pun by default.
I've already mane one Zatoichi reference, and Blind Fury is a remake of one of the earlier Zatoichi films anyway... and unlike the Japanese films, Blind Fury has a blind man taking down a bunch of cops, so it seemed more relevant.
Albatross wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you, though I would suggest that perhaps the officer in question would have proceeded with more caution if he was armed with a gun, as opposed to a 'non-lethal' weapon. He was confident that he wouldn't kill the guy, so it didn't matter as much if he made a mistake. Make sense?
Yeah, and that's a strong argument put forward by people who are opposed to giving policemen tasers - when the weapon is 'non-lethal' police use them a lot more often, leading to instances where heart failure or the like causes them to actually be very lethal.
I'm not sure instances like this are reason enough to stop police having tasers, but it's certainly a good reason to review how freely they're used by officers, and how many of those instances are justified.
n0t_u wrote:Chavs are the reason that even though incidents like this may happen with idiots, they should still be armed nonetheless.
Or give them a police curling league.
The police don't need to be armed to deal with chavs, I can see the argument that police would need to be armed to deal with gang members, but chavs are just young idiots rather than a dangerous menace on society.
The problem that we have in Bamber Bridge is that they mature into fully grown chavs....... And it gets worse as they grow.......
But in all honesty how you could mistake a blindstick for a katana or wakzeishi is beyond me..... Both forms are curved and extremely distinct...... Of course you could say a fencing foil but thats to short and also incredibly thin and wippy(kinky ) And any other sword is either to short or to distinct......
Something needs to be done here. Maybe incooperate something into the officers training
But in all honesty how you could mistake a blindstick for a katana or wakzeishi is beyond me..... Both forms are curved and extremely distinct...... Of course you could say a fencing foil but thats to short and also incredibly thin and wippy(kinky )
And any other sword is either to short or to distinct......
Absolutely ridiculous, how many times have I said it though? This gak is going to happen because of the state of our police service.
They hardly ever recruit streetwise working class lads anymore, they don't take rough and tumble ex SF guys or genuinely intelligent veteran squaddies who are cool under pressure and articulate. No, it all changed when labour took over and suddenly they wanted everyone to have a degree.
I know loads of lads have tried out for them on leaving the service, I don't know a one that got a job though, they go for obese women with degrees in latin or spotty dweebs with the street smarts of a 15 year old Czechoslovakian peasant that was human trafficked into London.
I remember when I got busted for pissing behind a phone box about ten years ago.. the copper needlessly gak himself when I said "come on mate theres no need to nick me" in a not even remotely threatening way.. he whipped his spring loaded truncheon out and started holding it in front of his face like a lightsaber going "STAY BACK! STAY BACK!" while me and all my friends looked bemused. The only coppers I ever have a good dealing with (there are still plenty obviously) are always the wrong side of 40.
Ask yourself this, would a calm man used to dealing with pressure run up behind a blind bloke and taze the gak out of him? There is absolutely no way you can possibly mistake a thin, short white thing for a sword unless you are either blind as a bat yourself, or verging on panic. Clearly his pulse was racing because he heard the word "sword" his adrenaline was going, and as a result of him being a fething pansy he fried the guy without even challenging him.
Its not even his fault really, it's the fault of the establishment, Police training is weak, and any spineless cretin can do it. They should beast coppers as per the military, they should have a training bleed (some people actually fail the course) and either give them a backbone or fire them.
Add in a tough twice yearly fitness test so they maintain the confidence and composure you innately have when you are aware you are extremely fit and capable, and this kind of thing will be a rarity.
Instead of the fat, saggy, terrified of their own shadow graduates that currently make up 75% of our grossly incompetent police force nowadays.
Of course the issue here isn't that the Cop had a Taser. Its that you had a dumb cop.
Remember, Stupidity needs no enabler. The person will be stupid and hurt people whether he has a gun, taser, or red GW whippy stick.
eh. You're part right. There are plenty of cops that see tasers and mace as enablers of poor policing. But yes the issue here is not the issued equipment.
Of course the issue here isn't that the Cop had a Taser. Its that you had a dumb cop.
Remember, Stupidity needs no enabler. The person will be stupid and hurt people whether he has a gun, taser, or red GW whippy stick.
eh. You're part right. There are plenty of cops that see tasers and mace as enablers of poor policing. But yes the issue here is not the issued equipment.
Of course the issue here isn't that the Cop had a Taser. Its that you had a dumb cop.
Remember, Stupidity needs no enabler. The person will be stupid and hurt people whether he has a gun, taser, or red GW whippy stick.
eh. You're part right. There are plenty of cops that see tasers and mace as enablers of poor policing. But yes the issue here is not the issued equipment.
You rang?
O look, its that one example of so called "police brutality" thats been so throughly disproven its not even relavent any more.
Seriously, watch the full unedited version of the video. The police response was very light handed. I would have personally called in the SWAT to extract the officers if I had been overseeing the situation.
Grey Templar wrote: [
O look, its that one example of so called "police brutality" thats been so throughly disproven its not even relavent any more.
Seriously, watch the full unedited version of the video. The police response was very light handed. I would have personally called in the SWAT to extract the officers if I had been overseeing the situation.
If you prefer, I can give you some others.
How about a homeless mentally ill man being beaten to death by officers of the law.
Grey Templar wrote: [
O look, its that one example of so called "police brutality" thats been so throughly disproven its not even relavent any more.
Seriously, watch the full unedited version of the video. The police response was very light handed. I would have personally called in the SWAT to extract the officers if I had been overseeing the situation.
If you prefer, I can give you some others.
How about a homeless mentally ill man being beaten to death by officers of the law.
Yeah, its way too blurry to tell what was going on. The guy was obviously not cooperating with the cops and we have no idea of what happened before the video.
Of course the issue here isn't that the Cop had a Taser. Its that you had a dumb cop.
Remember, Stupidity needs no enabler. The person will be stupid and hurt people whether he has a gun, taser, or red GW whippy stick.
eh. You're part right. There are plenty of cops that see tasers and mace as enablers of poor policing. But yes the issue here is not the issued equipment.
You rang?
O look, its that one example of so called "police brutality" thats been so throughly disproven its not even relavent any more.
Seriously, watch the full unedited version of the video. The police response was very light handed. I would have personally called in the SWAT to extract the officers if I had been overseeing the situation.
We aren't going to agree but the police response was disproportionate and therefore brutal, hence police brutality.
Of course the issue here isn't that the Cop had a Taser. Its that you had a dumb cop.
Remember, Stupidity needs no enabler. The person will be stupid and hurt people whether he has a gun, taser, or red GW whippy stick.
eh. You're part right. There are plenty of cops that see tasers and mace as enablers of poor policing. But yes the issue here is not the issued equipment.
You rang?
O look, its that one example of so called "police brutality" thats been so throughly disproven its not even relavent any more.
Seriously, watch the full unedited version of the video. The police response was very light handed. I would have personally called in the SWAT to extract the officers if I had been overseeing the situation.
We aren't going to agree but the police response was disproportionate and therefore brutal, hence police brutality.
If you watch the full unedited version of the video, you will see that the protesters had encircled the officers and were preventing them from leaving. While at the same time demanding the officers leave. They also demanded the officers release people they had arrested, while implying the threat of violence.
These things are a threat to the safety of the officers, and would actually validate the use of physical force.
The officers instead gave multiple warnings they were going to use pepper spray. The protesters were fully aware pepper spray was going to be deployed. The officers made it abundantly clear, even shaking the can for about a minute before deploying it.
All in all, the officers behaved in a very professional manner. The protesters behaved like the scum of the earth.
Grey Templar wrote: [
O look, its that one example of so called "police brutality" thats been so throughly disproven its not even relavent any more.
Seriously, watch the full unedited version of the video. The police response was very light handed. I would have personally called in the SWAT to extract the officers if I had been overseeing the situation.
If you prefer, I can give you some others.
How about a homeless mentally ill man being beaten to death by officers of the law.
Pray tell, if you have a point, what is it?
That reliance on tasers, pepper spray, firearms and overwhelming force are not ways to effectively protect and serve.
As Matty said earlier, a good deal of older British police are also able to deploy two terrifying weapons in their arsenal, common sense and empathy. It seems to be lacking lately on both sides of the Atlantic.
If you watch the full unedited version of the video, you will see that the protesters had encircled the officers and were preventing them from leaving. While at the same time demanding the officers leave. They also demanded the officers release people they had arrested, while implying the threat of violence.
These things are a threat to the safety of the officers, and would actually validate the use of physical force.
The officers instead gave multiple warnings they were going to use pepper spray. The protesters were fully aware pepper spray was going to be deployed. The officers made it abundantly clear, even shaking the can for about a minute before deploying it.
All in all, the officers behaved in a very professional manner. The protesters behaved like the scum of the earth.
I've seen the footage, but the "threat of violence" you mentioned requires an amount of mental gymnastics. They didn't threaten anyone with violence, they simply refused to allow them to leave, which while inconvenient isn't violent by any means. If the police had acted professionally they would have arrested the protesters for unlawful detainment, or whatever law they broke. To be honest, I'd rather not derail this thread with this old argument.
As Matty said earlier, a good deal of older British police are also able to deploy two terrifying weapons in their arsenal, common sense and empathy. It seems to be lacking lately on both sides of the Atlantic.
Aye you know what I mean though, my old man always goes on about how good the rozzers where when he was a kid, they were all beat bobbies who knew the area, knew your name, all ex-commandos and gak like that, big grizzly blokes with big moustaches and big hearts who were always ready to give you a clip round the ear and chase burglars.
Now they gak themselves when they see criminals, its on the radio for reinforcements not "Oi!" and chase the fethers.
Thats why there is brutality, it makes perfect logical sense. A calm copper who is confident isn't gaking himself, so he doesn't needlessly lash out at people. Why did that copper push that bloke over who died last year? He wasn't even a threat at all.. its because he was edgy and jumpy and when the guy appeared in his peripheral he went "Woah!" and lashed out, they do it all time.
Im a good judge of character, I can tell within ten seconds of meeting a copper if its a good one or a bad one. A good one looks confident and self assured and is polite, a bad one gets in your face because he is jumpy as feth. I remember only last year we were malingering outside my mates birds house cos we were staying at hers and we got split up on the walk back from the boozer, anyway a meat wagon and two cars rocked up because they apparently seen a suspicious group on a CCTV or something.. two cars and a meat wagon and about fething 9 coppers turned up, there was only 3 of us.
Anyway, the back door burst open and they all steamed over, I remember training with the RUC/PSNI in 2000 and getting taught "chat up" technique, which is basically the rules for trying to keep a situation calm, its gak like stand on a slight angle when addressing someone (something to do with primal confrontational urges when you are square on facing someone) standing several yards away, gak like that.
This one fether steamed over, stood square on to me and about 3 inches from my face and started proper giving me gak... I had a RM tshirt on and he started saying "Oh are you a tough guy then are you eh?" like within 2 seconds of coming over, never even asked what we were doing there or anything.. almost like he wanted me to swing for him so he had an excuse to nick me or something.. maybe its got something to do with hitting "targets" or some such nonsense.
Anyway, the point is, you can be a law abiding citizen and not like coppers. Its perfectly sensible, because sure plenty of them are sound... but their standards and training is clearly lacking and as a result half of them are fething bell-ends!
I always find the short, fat, obviously ridiculed at school women are the worst ones.
If you watch the full unedited version of the video, you will see that the protesters had encircled the officers and were preventing them from leaving. While at the same time demanding the officers leave. They also demanded the officers release people they had arrested, while implying the threat of violence.
These things are a threat to the safety of the officers, and would actually validate the use of physical force.
The officers instead gave multiple warnings they were going to use pepper spray. The protesters were fully aware pepper spray was going to be deployed. The officers made it abundantly clear, even shaking the can for about a minute before deploying it.
All in all, the officers behaved in a very professional manner. The protesters behaved like the scum of the earth.
I've seen the footage, but the "threat of violence" you mentioned requires an amount of mental gymnastics. They didn't threaten anyone with violence, they simply refused to allow them to leave, which while inconvenient isn't violent by any means. If the police had acted professionally they would have arrested the protesters for unlawful detainment, or whatever law they broke. To be honest, I'd rather not derail this thread with this old argument.
I don't think you get what you just said. In the states "refusing to allow them to leave" is unlawful imprisonment/kidnapping. I can legally blow you to hell for trying that.
Big City cops maybe. Every cop I've met is real nice and all my buddies have met real nice cops.
Maybe its a West Coast thing.
Anyway, they are still officers of the law. If you are a law abiding citizen you can just comply and leave in peace. If your rights are violated, sure you have the right to speak up.
Just because a cops being rude doesn't mean you can be rude back. Its not right, and its certaintly not smart.
Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.
Violence =/= physical harm.
Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.
from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
kronk wrote:
dæl wrote: they simply refused to allow them to leave, which while inconvenient isn't violent by any means.
That's called unlawful restraint and it is a violent crime. Unlawful restraint of peace officers, even.
But maybe they are having a bad day, maybe its a misunderstanding, etc... Why the Cop is acting like he is is irrelevent. All that matters is how you respond.
Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.
Violence =/= physical harm.
Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.
from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Thank you for proving what the protestors did was Violent
Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.
Violence =/= physical harm.
Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.
from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
Thank you for proving what the protestors did was Violent
As I said, mental gymnastics. What physical force was threatened? What deprivation went on?
But maybe they are having a bad day, maybe its a misunderstanding, etc... Why the Cop is acting like he is is irrelevent. All that matters is how you respond.
Like I said you have it backwards. I can be as rude to the cops as I want; the cop does not have the same freedom. His JOB is to interact with the public. As a professional rudeness is unacceptable. it may not be polite but it's my right as a citizen to treat the cops with distain, rudeness, and derision; cops do not have the same right.
I can't post it while I'm out and about but I have a great video of a cop who is both polite and firm with a total d bag. He's damn near perfect.
For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"
Soooooo dael or however you get your magic "ae" you're wrong and not only are your own justifications (like your wiki link) proving it, but the US justice system flat out disagrees as well.
Grey Templar wrote: To be fair, in New York you could miss your target and still hit a criminal
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"
Soooooo dael or however you get your magic "ae" you're wrong and not only are your own justifications (like your wiki link) proving it, but the US justice system flat out disagrees as well.
They're hardly independent are they? Investigations only really count when there's no vested interest in finding a certain outcome. Exactly the same as when this chappy who shot the blind guy in the back gets investigated by the "Independent" Police Complaints Commission and they find no wrongdoing and he ends up doing something similar in a few years.
æ you can get from character map, along with many other cool things. Although I generally just CtrlC CtrlV.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"
Not that I disagree with what you're saying here but the Reynoso TF cited the incident as "critically flawed", and LT Pike no longer works for UC. Odds are very good they still pay him though.
Grey Templar wrote: To be fair, in New York you could miss your target and still hit a criminal
I legitimately forget, was this the same logic you used when those NYPD officers managed to hit 9 bystanders near the Empire State Building?
Grey Templar wrote:Unlawful imprisonment is a threatening action. Not allowing someone to leave is imprisonment, which by its definition is a violent threat.
Violence =/= physical harm.
Violence does equal physical harm or threat thereof.
from wikipedia: Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
kronk wrote:
dæl wrote: they simply refused to allow them to leave, which while inconvenient isn't violent by any means.
That's called unlawful restraint and it is a violent crime. Unlawful restraint of peace officers, even.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: For the record Lieutenant Pike and his officers were all found to have used appropriate force by three separate investigations with the actual internal department investigation, the University's Board (or whatever) had an investigation and the County DA, ALL came back and said "Nope cops were in the right"
Not that I disagree with what you're saying here but the Reynoso TF cited the incident as "critically flawed", and LT Pike no longer works for UC. Odds are very good they still pay him though.
Sure but the Yuba County DA's office cleared all the officers involved on the use of force. Was the situation flawed? Yes I'd say it was poor tactics on the officer's part and they needed to come out with more force (as in numbers) and disperse the protestors (as in hippy trash). The situation was jacked, the use of force wasn't is all I'm saying.
old people having seizures getting tazed is FETHED up
To be fair though, some of the cases where police shoot people, you really have to wonder what the feth the'victim' was thinking.
the FEDERAL government said the cops here shoot and taze TOOOOOOOOOOOOO much, especially the mentally ill.
if you are an unarmed black man or a mentally ill person off your meds and it is after 11, watch out for bullets from cops
I'm a white male in my early 30's and am employed I feel safe as hell, I just feel for all these poor folks getting shot and killed by cops who are known "Nazis"
@ DIDM... I was referring to the Kendra James shooting. I was home on leave when it happened, and basically had no sympathy whatsoever.
Basically cop pulls over car with 2 black women in it. Driver starts getting attitude with police, and exits vehicle. While talking to officer outside vehicle, the pregnant passenger thinks its a good idea to hop over to the drivers' seat, and take off. As she is now fleeing a crime scene, cop opens fire, killing pregnant lady, killing her.
The kicker here is though, they were pulled over at a GAS STATION, lol.
