Great-grandma dared cop to Tase her, so he did

[tele_mark]

Well, by the looks of the video, she probably doesn't have a pacemaker....

 

[jkelly]

I knew I recognized that lady I use to drink with her son.

Respectfully,
jkelly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZag1zlecGI

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

I hate to say it, but she did ask for it...literally. Amazing that someone that stupid ever made it to that age.

 

[Mass-diver]

(Just curious) for cops that carry tazers, do they carry OC as well, if so what dictates if you go the OC or the tazer?

Cases like this really point out the value of those dashboard cameras. C

 

[Blitz1]

I was just able to watch the vid, she earned that.

 

[Jason]

They were being arrested, they were WARNED, and they resisted. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Did you even watch the video?

Derek, M1911, I've watched the video and understand what is going on. I actually believe that the deputy was within what is presently considered normal operational standards as a police officer. I believe the deputy was likely operating under the standards and guidelines in which he was instructed.

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here. The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it. I think that the role and power of the police and the government in general has expand way to far and it is time to scale both back. I want to live in a society where the role of the police is limited to keepers of the peace and not as blind enforcers of obedience. I am fully aware that I am taking a very idealogical position on this but a society that rationalizes inflicting violence on old ladies for refusing to sign a piece of paper not ok with me. I feel obligated to advocate against that as being the standard and to try to persuade others to not accepting such a low standard for the use of violence.

 

[GSG]

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

Yup.

(Just curious) for cops that carry tazers, do they carry OC as well, if so what dictates if you go the OC or the tazer?

Every department is different. Some departments make them choose one or the other, some they get both, others they get neither.

Using which one depends on the department use of force policy.

 

[bambame2]

Derek, M1911, I've watched the video and understand what is going on. I actually believe that the deputy was within what is presently considered normal operational standards as a police officer. I believe the deputy was likely operating under the standards and guidelines in which he was instructed.

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here. The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it. I think that the role and power of the police and the government in general has expand way to far and it is time to scale both back. I want to live in a society where the role of the police is limited to keepers of the peace and not as blind enforcers of obedience. I am fully aware that I am taking a very idealogical position on this but a society that rationalizes inflicting violence on old ladies for refusing to sign a piece of paper not ok with me. I feel obligated to advocate against that as being the standard and to try to persuade others to not accepting such a low standard for the use of violence.

+1 you took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[Kicker96FS]

I agree, but was she not WARNED repeatedly?????????

She is hard of hearing? She has alzheimer's?

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here. The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it.

Agreed, why does one HAVE to sign the ticket? Some states have you do that, I don't get it. The LEO has your lic., reg., has you on camera, what else do they need!?
It's a grouchy old lady, let he go on her way for Christ sakes.

 

[JoeyD]

Derek, M1911, I've watched the video and understand what is going on. I actually believe that the deputy was within what is presently considered normal operational standards as a police officer. I believe the deputy was likely operating under the standards and guidelines in which he was instructed.

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here. The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it. I think that the role and power of the police and the government in general has expand way to far and it is time to scale both back. I want to live in a society where the role of the police is limited to keepers of the peace and not as blind enforcers of obedience. I am fully aware that I am taking a very idealogical position on this but a society that rationalizes inflicting violence on old ladies for refusing to sign a piece of paper not ok with me. I feel obligated to advocate against that as being the standard and to try to persuade others to not accepting such a low standard for the use of violence.

To avoid this situation she could have just signed the ticket. She chose to be above the law which in this case is a very simple one and then paid the price. I see nothing wrong with the standard the dept used in this event.

 

[BRIGUY]

Its not right , but I will never say that its not funny , I think I heard her sqeal like pig.

 

[GSG]

Agreed, why does one HAVE to sign the ticket? Some states have you do that, I don't get it. The LEO has your lic., reg., has you on camera, what else do they need!?

To acknowledge that you recieved it, just like a detention in high school.

 

[Bill Nance]

Derek, M1911, I've watched the video and understand what is going on. I actually believe that the deputy was within what is presently considered normal operational standards as a police officer. I believe the deputy was likely operating under the standards and guidelines in which he was instructed.

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here. The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it. I think that the role and power of the police and the government in general has expand way to far and it is time to scale both back. I want to live in a society where the role of the police is limited to keepers of the peace and not as blind enforcers of obedience. I am fully aware that I am taking a very idealogical position on this but a society that rationalizes inflicting violence on old ladies for refusing to sign a piece of paper not ok with me. I feel obligated to advocate against that as being the standard and to try to persuade others to not accepting such a low standard for the use of violence.

So she gets a free pass to break the law unless the crime is violent? WTF?

ALL law is force. It's the nature of governmental authority. By the standards you laid out, only crimes of violence would ever be enforced. So if I steal your car, embezzle from your business or commit any other non-violent infraction the law has no recourse. They fine me, I don't pay it. They revoke my driver's license? I drive anyway.

Without the ability to coerce compliance law has no meaning whatever.
We do in fact, live in a republic. We have the power to change laws we don't like. Of course since most people are sheep, that doesn't happen as often as we might like, but it is still possible.

We delegate to the state authority to pass and enforce laws. You might want to look into our history, specifically the Whiskey Rebellion, for some examples of the use of force from our founding. And that was about collecting taxes.

No one gets a free pass to break the law. I don't care if you're 17 or 70. If you want to break the law then do so, but don't then complain that you were arrested, and that force was used because you resisted repeated attempts to try to bring you in peacefully.

 

[jcetto0351]

The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it.

You have to sign the ticket because it is Texas law. The law enforcement officer was enforcing the law. I half agree in the sense that maybe the teser wasn't necessary but I don't begrudge the cop because that lady had it coming! If you don't want to be tased, mased, tackled, handcuffed, etc. then listen to the police officer's commands and battle it out in court!

The question I have is, would that cop be liable if he slammed her on the hood and accidently broke her collar-bone or wrist if he had not tased her? I bet the same people up in arms about the taser would have been just as mad if he "roughed her up" while trying to get her in cuffs.

 

[Admin]

I agree with the second part of your post Jason.

 

[Kenny474]

The Officer was doing his job. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do. All that lady had to do was shut up and sign a ticket and go on her way. Instead she decided to break the law and antagonize a Police Officer, and paid the price of doing so. He could have tackled her and wrapped her arm up behind her back, but he tazed her instead, probably saving her multiple injuries in the process.

She made her own choices and had to deal with the consequences. In 72 years you think she would be a little smarter than she is.

If you think the PO was hard on her, go try it yourself and see how you fare. I bet you end up worse than that by far. Cops don't like it when you resist arrest.

On the contrary, the laws may not all be fair, but we all must follow them. Some laws we could truly do without, but that is not the PO's decision to make.

 

[vellnueve]

Elderly people are not exempt from the law. No sympathy.

 

[Jose]

Derek, M1911, I've watched the video and understand what is going on. I actually believe that the deputy was within what is presently considered normal operational standards as a police officer. I believe the deputy was likely operating under the standards and guidelines in which he was instructed.

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here. The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it. I think that the role and power of the police and the government in general has expand way to far and it is time to scale both back. I want to live in a society where the role of the police is limited to keepers of the peace and not as blind enforcers of obedience. I am fully aware that I am taking a very idealogical position on this but a society that rationalizes inflicting violence on old ladies for refusing to sign a piece of paper not ok with me. I feel obligated to advocate against that as being the standard and to try to persuade others to not accepting such a low standard for the use of violence.

This is one of the dumbest and most immature positions I have ever heard of in my life.

I most states, the law requires that you sign a summons as a promise to appear in court for your hearing or plead guilty by paying a fine IN LIEU OF ARREST. You are not refusing to sign employment papers, a legal waiver, or an insurance policy. You are refusing to acknowledge and abide by the summons of a court for a criminal or traffic infraction.

When you refuse to sign such summons, you have told the peace officer dealing with you that you DO NOT intend to appear in court or plead out the offense. He or she then HAS NO CHOICE but to place you under arrest and take you to a magistrate at the earliest opportunity.

If you think that physical force should never be used to compel compliance pursuant to arrest, how do you then propose to have police do their jobs? Would it be OK with you for rapists, robbers, drug dealers, and reckless drivers to avoid reckoning for their conduct unless they voluntarily get in the back of a police car?

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[M1911]

(Just curious) for cops that carry tazers, do they carry OC as well, if so what dictates if you go the OC or the tazer?

I think most carry OC as well. I'm not sure exactly where it fits in the force continuum, and I think different forces have different views.

OC requires you to decontaminate the prisoner and also risks cross-contaminating the officer.

 

[M1911]

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others.

OK, let's take that viewpoint to its logical conclusion. You are not home when I break into your house and cart the better part of your gun collection into the back of my SUV. Your lovely neighbor is appalled and calls the police. The police show up and tell me I'm under arrest. I don't threaten them in any way, but I simply won't comply. I just get into my truck and drive away. Since I was not physically harming anyone, nor threatening them, there is nothing they can do. They can't stop me, since that would require physical force which you have ruled out. They can follow me to my house, but they still can't do anything, since all I'm doing is carting your stuff out of my SUV and into my house. Since I'm not threatening anyone and not complying, their hands are tied.

That might work in your Utopian libertarian world. It doesn't work in the real world, with real people.

The harsh reality is that arresting a person who is resisting arrest (whether by punching or non-violently) simply isn't pretty. It never has been and it never will be. It is ugly, nasty, and brutish. The police officer isn't paid to play by Marquess of Queensberry's rules. The cop is paid to win. Every single time. And if the cop loses, he may well die right there and then.

It was different when I was growing up: 1) if we did witness such going's on, we would have been telling the perp, "I wouldn't do that shit if I were you!", and 2) when the officer broke their nose and gave them a nuclear-atomic wedgie while dragging them off to the squad car, we'd be telling them, "I told you not to do that shit."

Nowadays we post the videotape on Youtube and they file a civil rights lawsuit. And if the cop uses taser, the perp has few, if any, injuries. In the past, the cop would have used their nightstick for percussive persuasion.

 

[Half Cocked]

I actually believe that the deputy was within what is presently considered normal operational standards as a police officer. I believe the deputy was likely operating under the standards and guidelines in which he was instructed.

Then you contradict yourself with this statement:

Deputy Chris Bieze = Pathetic excuse for a peace officer

If he was operating under the standards and guidelines of which he was instructed does that not make him a very good officer.

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here.

So... how do you propose that an officer arrest someone who wishes not to be arrested?

How do you arrest and take into custody a person who sits down and crosses their arms and legs and refuses to cooperate? They are under arrest but are being passively resistant.

Do the police just stand there for hours and beg the person to comply?

The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it.

It's the law!! You may not like the law but it is the law.

but a society that rationalizes inflicting violence on old ladies for refusing to sign a piece of paper not ok with me.

The law does not discriminate against age. Ask some security guards in Washington DC if you should go easy on the elderly?

 

[Half Cocked]

Elderly people are not exempt from the law. No sympathy.

Agreed....look what happened in DC today.

 

[FalArAk]

The cops should have just shot her and left a note on her body to call the local PD.

 

[capeframer]

Derek, M1911, I've watched the video and understand what is going on. I actually believe that the deputy was within what is presently considered normal operational standards as a police officer. I believe the deputy was likely operating under the standards and guidelines in which he was instructed.

However I believe those standards are morally wrong and need to change. I don't believe that the use violence is justified against people that are not harming others. Violence should only be used in the defense of one's self or the defense of others. Neither is the case here. The very act of requiring her to sign the ticket is violence itself because it is backed up by the coercive threat of violence if she does not sign it. I think that the role and power of the police and the government in general has expand way to far and it is time to scale both back. I want to live in a society where the role of the police is limited to keepers of the peace and not as blind enforcers of obedience. I am fully aware that I am taking a very idealogical position on this but a society that rationalizes inflicting violence on old ladies for refusing to sign a piece of paper not ok with me. I feel obligated to advocate against that as being the standard and to try to persuade others to not accepting such a low standard for the use of violence.

i agree with you 100%

 

[Martlet]

I get nervous that the tazer has become a go-to submission tool.

 

[Half Cocked]

I get nervous that the tazer has become a go-to submission tool.

Come out to your driveway and find out!!

 

[M1911]

I get nervous that the tazer has become a go-to submission tool.

It has its issues and is certainly not without risk. But injuries to the perp and to the officers are less when the officer uses a taser than when he grapples.

 

[Supermoto]

The cops should have just shot her and left a note on her body to call the local PD.

I think dept protocol would require her to be sitting on her porch, in her rocking chair.....knitting,

 

[RI_John]

The cops should have just shot her and left a note on her body to call the local PD.

damn that's funny!

 

[Martlet]

Come out to your driveway and find out!!

There's no one in my driveway, because it's my private property, regardless what some podunk police may think.

It has its issues and is certainly not without risk. But injuries to the perp and to the officers are less when the officer uses a taser than when he grapples.

I agree. Doesn't it bother you on some level, though?