05-04-2010, 04:47 PM
<!--quoteo(post=94704:date=May 4 2010, 03:37 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 4 2010, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=94702:date=May 4 2010, 03:34 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 4 2010, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=94642:date=May 4 2010, 01:43 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ May 4 2010, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The moment he decided to run on the field...he lost the argument. He gets no say in what a policeman decides to do to stop him...
Taze him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realize the ramifications of this argument, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. If a guy is committing an egregious felony shoot him. If it's a misdemeanor, tase him.
Admittedly, it's unpleasant to see it put that way. But isn't that how law and order works?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not what Rapp is arguing. And no, of course that's not how law and order works. Breaking the law does not mean you have given up ALL of your rights, and it certainly does not mean an officer of the law gets to decide how to stop you.
I haven't the foggiest idea if tasing is a reasonable response to chasing down a drunk, but one mans tasing could be another mans baton to the head. Or a kick in the nuts.
The police have procedures in place for this kind of thing. Cops don't get to decide on their own how far they are going to take it, and a simple act of trespassing certainly doesn't mean you get "no say" in what the cops do to you. From what I've read, the use of a taser in this instance seems to really be a stretch for Philadelphia police procedure. They are supposed to use taser in order to subdue someone "fleeing", but it's pretty obvious this guy was going nowhere.
Taze him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realize the ramifications of this argument, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. If a guy is committing an egregious felony shoot him. If it's a misdemeanor, tase him.
Admittedly, it's unpleasant to see it put that way. But isn't that how law and order works?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not what Rapp is arguing. And no, of course that's not how law and order works. Breaking the law does not mean you have given up ALL of your rights, and it certainly does not mean an officer of the law gets to decide how to stop you.
I haven't the foggiest idea if tasing is a reasonable response to chasing down a drunk, but one mans tasing could be another mans baton to the head. Or a kick in the nuts.
The police have procedures in place for this kind of thing. Cops don't get to decide on their own how far they are going to take it, and a simple act of trespassing certainly doesn't mean you get "no say" in what the cops do to you. From what I've read, the use of a taser in this instance seems to really be a stretch for Philadelphia police procedure. They are supposed to use taser in order to subdue someone "fleeing", but it's pretty obvious this guy was going nowhere.
I wish that I believed in Fate. I wish I didn't sleep so late. I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders.