What a ****ing Mess [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : What a ****ing Mess


Top_Shot_31
11-01-2012, 15:15
Regardless whether or not the claims made in the lawsuit are true (and I'm sure they're not), this looks like a ******* mess for the officer involved.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/lawsuit-alleges-police-officer-tasered-10-old-school-152530178.html

SPDSNYPR
11-01-2012, 15:44
How did he only get 3 days on the ground?

RyanNREMTP
11-01-2012, 15:49
Bet a new policy was just written at that department.

CJStudent
11-01-2012, 15:57
How did he only get 3 days on the ground?

Exactly what I'm wondering. I'm trying to figure out why he wasn't on admin leave until the termination caught up to him.

t4terrific
11-01-2012, 16:18
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.

Patchman
11-01-2012, 16:25
If the article is correct, then this was definitely a joke gone south. Very, very south.

A Tazer is a non-lethal tool. If that LEO had pulled out his mace instead, and accidently maced the kid, same ending.

Kid's parents suing? Of course. Policies changed? You bet.

mrdann
11-01-2012, 16:26
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.

Thank you for that incredibly articulate and thought provoking contribution. The world is better, now that you have spoken. Thanks again! dork

Patchman
11-01-2012, 16:29
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.


If the tazer was legally owned by your civilian, the story would NEVER have even made the news. You know that.

OFCJIM40
11-02-2012, 00:37
t4terrific, kindly tell us your profession (if employed) so we can begin to tear it apart and make wild off base accusations.

blueiron
11-02-2012, 00:48
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.

Really?

You're a freaking idiot.

blueiron
11-02-2012, 00:52
t4terrific, kindly tell us your profession (if employed) so we can begin to tear it apart and make wild off base accusations.

I'd venture that he is part of the 47% who pay no taxes, mooch off of the work of others, and complain that his narcissistic fantasies aren't catered to by society.

11A
11-02-2012, 03:54
t4terrific,

Thanks for stopping by and adding your excellent contribution; now sit in the corner and let the adults have their discussion.

Gallium
11-02-2012, 04:44
t4terrific,

Thanks for stopping by and adding your excellent contribution; now sit in the corner and let the adults have their discussion.


With all that stink emanating from the full diaper? No ****ing way.

Bren
11-02-2012, 05:40
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.

Here in KY, and many other states, that wouldn't be a crime, so nobody would go to jail

Like usual, lefty nuts have to make up an anti-police whine for every thread.

If you want to post legal conclusions, learn some law or at least support it with a link to a relevant statute.

Clutch Cargo
11-02-2012, 06:17
I don't know LEO rights (if any) when it comes to cases like this. Therefore I cannot comment.
I DO know that the intentional pointing of a less lethal weapon at a child, and the resultant ND and harm to a child, will get VERY expensive for the taxpayers and/or the officer himself.

Mayhem like Me
11-02-2012, 08:13
Officer in this case needs to be fired, extremely poor judgement Probably hired due to relaxed standards that we are all so fond of.
My opinion is based on the supposition that he did in fact point a live Taser at a non threat in a non training scenario.

This display is about as stupid as it gets my guns and taser stay holstere.

Policy? We should not need a policy to tell us not to point a live Taser at a Kid while dicking around at a career day.

md2lgyk
11-02-2012, 08:16
Bet a new policy was just written at that department.

Yeah, and I bet there'll be a position opening up real soon.

merlynusn
11-02-2012, 10:16
He obviously did something to get suspended for 3 days without pay. But I'm guessing it's not exactly what's in the lawsuit. Since he's already been handed his punishment, the city will just pay it out and be done with it.

t4, you have no idea what you're talking about. Let's just leave it at that.

Mattz
11-02-2012, 10:34
Simply idiotic... he needs to be a door greeter at Wal-Mart.

L-1
11-02-2012, 12:43
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/2nmsuit.jpg

boomhower
11-02-2012, 13:29
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.

Going to vary by state, here it's not a crime. For it to be a crime there has to be an intent to harm. The officer had to intent to harm. Now for negligence in civil court is a completely different ball of wax. Thanks for stopping by and spewing garbage.

Clutch Cargo
11-02-2012, 14:12
Going to vary by state, here it's not a crime. For it to be a crime there has to be an intent to harm. The officer had to intent to harm. Now for negligence in civil court is a completely different ball of wax. Thanks for stopping by and spewing garbage.

I thought it was a federal law about not allowing kids having access to weapons. The law was TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Isn't that why locks have to come with guns?

Folks have been prosecuted for leaving guns in a nightstand and kid(s) get hurt/killed by the weapon they found. Parents had NO intent to harm the child, yet they were charged. Does not federal law (if one) trump state law?

Mayhem like Me
11-02-2012, 15:33
I thought it was a federal law about not allowing kids having access to weapons. The law was TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Isn't that why locks have to come with guns?

Folks have been prosecuted for leaving guns in a nightstand and kid(s) get hurt/killed by the weapon they found. Parents had NO intent to harm the child, yet they were charged. Does not federal law (if one) trump state law?

WTF are you talking about are you smoking the refer?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

t4terrific
11-02-2012, 15:53
Thank you for that incredibly articulate and thought provoking contribution. The world is better, now that you have spoken. Thanks again! dork

The Thin Blue Line...

Covering for each other no matter what.

See how people like you don't think the rules apply to you? Fully equipped with thoughtless, pointless drivel and topped off with an ad homonym. The rules only apply to the working class, right?

t4terrific
11-02-2012, 15:57
t4terrific, kindly tell us your profession (if employed) so we can begin to tear it apart and make wild off base accusations.

I work for a living. I don't have to take money from working people to get my pay. You?

t4terrific
11-02-2012, 16:00
Really?

You're a freaking idiot.

Another example. The rules don't apply to you? Fully equipped with ad homonym. Nice job. The Thin Blue Line. Cover for each other no matter what.

t4terrific
11-02-2012, 16:06
If the tazer was legally owned by your civilian, the story would NEVER have even made the news. You know that.

Any time an adult intentionally points a weapon at another person's child, and accidentally discharges it, there will be hell to pay. with a civilian there will be criminal proceedings first, then civil proceedings. Not in this case. The difference is the badge.

And every cop on the board will stick up for cop that tazers a 10 year old kid. That is a big problem.

Patchman
11-02-2012, 16:12
I work for a living. I don't have to take money from working people to get my pay. You?

So what do you do that's so productive for society?

And with your job, are you required to face the possbility you'll lose life or limb for a stranger? Face this danger every minute you're working, for the next 20 to 30 years?

CJStudent
11-02-2012, 16:20
http://pedant.artoflivin.sk/wp-content/uploads/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg

Hack
11-02-2012, 17:33
http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/750x970/documents/2nmsuit.jpg

Interesting.

Sent from my communicator.

Hack
11-02-2012, 17:38
http://pedant.artoflivin.sk/wp-content/uploads/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg

:agree:

Sent from my communicator.

FiremanMike
11-02-2012, 17:40
Interesting.

Sent from my communicator.

Quite amazing how different that is from the media version, eh?

CJStudent
11-02-2012, 18:06
Quite amazing how different that is from the media version, eh?

I'm not Hack, but indeed it is.

Newcop761
11-02-2012, 21:23
Hmm... so far all I've seen from the LEOs are posts questioning the judgment of the dummy that tased the kid and incredulity that he escaped with three days on the beach rather than termination.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8455/7984239413_7d4235b060_z.jpg

So, T, was it the background investigation, or (and this is my guess) the psych test?

t4terrific
11-02-2012, 21:29
So what do you do that's so productive for society?

And with your job, are you required to face the possbility you'll lose life or limb for a stranger? Face this danger every minute you're working, for the next 20 to 30 years?

What war zone are you in?

t4terrific
11-02-2012, 21:34
Hmm... so far all I've seen from the LEOs are posts questioning the judgment of the dummy that tased the kid and incredulity that he escaped with three days on the beach rather than termination.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8455/7984239413_7d4235b060_z.jpg

So, T, was it the background investigation, or (and this is my guess) the psych test?

What kept you out of Afghanistan?

TXCOPPER
11-02-2012, 22:39
Another example. The rules don't apply to you? Fully equipped with ad homonym. Nice job. The Thin Blue Line. Cover for each other no matter what.

And it's 'ad hominem' by the way.


Sent from my angry birds provider (aka my phone)

9jeeps
11-02-2012, 23:11
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.


So! Have you been soaking your head in a bucket of wet cement?:dunno:

OFCJIM40
11-02-2012, 23:35
I work for a living. I don't have to take money from working people to get my pay. You?

Nice non-answer. So you take money from non-working people? EVERY job that pays takes money from working people, whether it be taxes or payment for services or goods.

By the way, we've had far better trolls than you, try to step up your game

Patchman
11-02-2012, 23:50
What war zone are you in?

Actually, your community. It's nice to be shielded from what goes on here so you can sleep soundly at night, right? YOU'RE WELCOME.

You have no idea who I am, do you? :rofl::rofl:

Patchman
11-02-2012, 23:54
Any time an adult intentionally points a weapon at another person's child, and accidentally discharges it, there will be hell to pay. with a civilian there will be criminal proceedings first, then civil proceedings. Not in this case. The difference is the badge.


Selective reading of news, selective memory of news, huh?

Kingarthurhk
11-03-2012, 07:16
A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.

It is called "due process". Everyone is entitled to it, even people lke you who thrive on this type of story from the comfort of your armchair. It's comfortable there with beer and cheeto crumbs on your wife beater shirt, isn't it?

Kingarthurhk
11-03-2012, 08:11
What kept you out of Afghanistan?

Too old.

FLglockdude
11-03-2012, 09:25
Excuse me sir, you must be lost, GNG is this way.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=29

Now run along and play with the rest of the children.

A civilian who tazers a 10 year old accidentally, while intentionally pointing it right at him and acting like he's going to tazer the child, we go to jail. Case closed. It would go before a judge, blah, blah, blah.

What's the hold up here. Like usual, cops get protection from criminal acts.

The Thin Blue Line...

Covering for each other no matter what.

See how people like you don't think the rules apply to you? Fully equipped with thoughtless, pointless drivel and topped off with an ad homonym. The rules only apply to the working class, right?

I work for a living. I don't have to take money from working people to get my pay. You?

Another example. The rules don't apply to you? Fully equipped with ad homonym. Nice job. The Thin Blue Line. Cover for each other no matter what.

Any time an adult intentionally points a weapon at another person's child, and accidentally discharges it, there will be hell to pay. with a civilian there will be criminal proceedings first, then civil proceedings. Not in this case. The difference is the badge.

And every cop on the board will stick up for cop that tazers a 10 year old kid. That is a big problem.

What war zone are you in?

What kept you out of Afghanistan?

Kingarthurhk
11-03-2012, 09:41
I work for a living. I don't have to take money from working people to get my pay. You?


http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/7fqCS7Y_kME/mqdefault.jpg

11A
11-03-2012, 12:48
What kept you out of Afghanistan?

Iraq

What can I say, Bradleys don't perform well in a mountainous terrain.

What kept you out of Afghanistan?

Ohio Copper
11-03-2012, 13:04
Actually, your community. It's nice to be shielded from what goes on here so you can sleep soundly at night, right? YOU'RE WELCOME.

You have no idea who I am, do you? :rofl::rofl:

Ignorance is bliss.


" I was wondering what would break first; your spirit or your body."

Ohio Copper
11-03-2012, 13:04
Iraq

What can I say, Bradleys don't perform well in a mountainous terrain.

What kept you out of Afghanistan?

Call of duty kept him out of Afghanistan.


" I was wondering what would break first; your spirit or your body."

steveksux
11-03-2012, 13:14
Another example. The rules don't apply to you? Fully equipped with ad homonym. Nice job. The Thin Blue Line. Cover for each other no matter what.

And it's 'ad hominem' by the way.
Correct. Homonyms are words that sound the same. Related to homonymphobia, which is fear of words that sound the same as well as fear of homosexual nymphomaniacs.

Randy