StarDestroyer.Net BBS

"Speacial Needs" does not nessicarly mean that the kid is retarded, dimfucks. Most any syndromes or disorders that affect the mind put a kid under speacial needs. And no, I'm not refering to ADD. I'm refering to such things as Multiple Personality Disorder, Autism, and Down Syndrome. For all we know, the girl could have been abused by her family, formed personality disorders before DSS picked her up, and dumped her in the institution. She's escaping to get back to her family, fearing that one of her parents were beat her if when they find her. The cop picked her up, and cops were the people that took her away from her parents in the first place, so she gave it her all to get away from him.

Or maybe not. Remember, we don't fucking know, dipshits.

Keevan_Colton wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:

His Divine Shadow wrote:Maybe he doesn't like kids?

Still that does not justify tasering a 9 year old cuffed girl.

A cuffed, 9 year old, special needs girl!

So, you arguing for or against?

Chardok wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:I'm not saying it was justified, but most cops don't taser people for the hell of it.

Bit of a fallacy on my part here, but a month ago I would have said most american soldiers wouldn't beat, humiliate, rape, torture, and murder POW's (OR WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY ARE THIS WEEK) for the hell of it, too.

You're right that is a bit of a fallacy and irrelevant to boot. There are those that are bad people out and there are those that do bad things under some circumstances. But it's premature to assume that it's automatically wrong doing.

Singular Quartet wrote:"Speacial Needs" does not nessicarly mean that the kid is retarded, dimfucks. Most any syndromes or disorders that affect the mind put a kid under speacial needs. And no, I'm not refering to ADD. I'm refering to such things as Multiple Personality Disorder, Autism, and Down Syndrome.

She might not be retarded nut whatever it is it's apparently pretty darn serious. And an overwhelming amount of special needs kids have trouble with impusle control and plain old bad behaviour, retarded or not.

Singular Quartet wrote:For all we know, the girl could have been abused by her family, formed personality disorders before DSS picked her up, and dumped her in the institution. She's escaping to get back to her family, fearing that one of her parents were beat her if when they find her. The cop picked her up, and cops were the people that took her away from her parents in the first place, so she gave it her all to get away from him.

It's a school for special needs kids not an foster care facility or something of that nature.

Singular Quartet wrote:Or maybe not. Remember, we don't fucking know, dipshits.

And let's keep in mind what we do.

welcome to arizona. Any one else see "Bad Santa", and laugh more at this state then ever though possible?

Stormbringer wrote:You're right that is a bit of a fallacy and irrelevant to boot. There are those that are bad people out and there are those that do bad things under some circumstances. But it's premature to assume that it's automatically wrong doing.

True enough, I guess my point was, in an abstract kinda way, was that...can't really rely on perception anymore...

Chardok wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:I'm not saying it was justified, but most cops don't taser people for the hell of it.

Bit of a fallacy on my part here, but a month ago I would have said most american soldiers wouldn't beat, humiliate, rape, torture, and murder POW's (OR WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY ARE THIS WEEK) for the hell of it, too.

Most of em don't.

link

There's an investigation not simply because police Tasered a child but because she was already in a police car and already handcuffed at the time that they did it."

I dont know the explanation for this but it better be a good one.

The lost Prophet wrote:welcome to arizona. Any one else see "Bad Santa", and laugh more at this state then ever though possible?

Only in Arizona.. Home of the Miranda Decision, Apache Junction, and Tent City(My god I love tent city... VOTE JOE!!!)

The only state to recall IIRC 2 governers in a row...(or at least in close succession)

SecondStorm wrote:link

There's an investigation not simply because police Tasered a child but because she was already in a police car and already handcuffed at the time that they did it."

I dont know the explanation for this but it better be a good one.

The Department's Policy wrote:The policy says officers may not use a Taser when someone is cuffed unless they are still violent and uncontrollable.

It's entirely possible that she fit that. I've certainly seen some spectactular temper tantrums and I don't have much trouble believing a kid could fit that. Not in the least.

They had this on the news like last night. From what I caught of it, the girl was kicking the officer's car, and he claimed to have tasered her to keep her from hurting herself.

Stormbringer wrote:It's entirely possible that she fit that. I've certainly seen some spectactular temper tantrums and I don't have much trouble believing a kid could fit that. Not in the least.

A temper tantrum big enough that it makes tasering a 9 year old who's already handuffed justified?

Gil Hamilton wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:It's entirely possible that she fit that. I've certainly seen some spectactular temper tantrums and I don't have much trouble believing a kid could fit that. Not in the least.

A temper tantrum big enough that it makes tasering a 9 year old who's already handuffed justified?

Possibly.

Stormbringer wrote:Possibly.

How the hell do you figure that? She nine and in handcuffs and he's a grown man. There is no justifying hitting a small child with a police taser.

Ooh, a tazer. What a horrifically brutal weapon.

Gil Hamilton wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:Possibly.

How the hell do you figure that? She nine and in handcuffs and he's a grown man. There is no justifying hitting a small child with a police taser.

How would you restrain her?

Uraniun235 wrote:Ooh, a tazer. What a horrifically brutal weapon.

around 50,000 volts. granted, it's only a milliamp or two but still, that will seriously fuck you up for a minute.

So fucking what if she's only nine?

I remember a couple of years back when a couple of 4yo kids murdered a 3 year old in norway.

Besides, small kids can be just as dangerous as an adult, and especially if they have a mental disorder.

He did what he judged had to be done, get over it.

Julhelm wrote:So fucking what if she's only nine?

I remember a couple of years back when a couple of 4yo kids murdered a 3 year old in norway.

Besides, small kids can be just as dangerous as an adult, and especially if they have a mental disorder.

He did what he judged had to be done, get over it.

You moron, a couple of 4 years olds may be dangerous to a 3 year old, but 9 year old girls (particularly handcuffed ones) are not dangerous to a pair of police officers and only a true idiot with think otherwise.

He did what he judges had to be done, and he should go to jail for it for a very long time, because it was a seriously bad and criminal act.

Gil Hamilton wrote: You moron, a couple of 4 years olds may be dangerous to a 3 year old, but 9 year old girls (particularly handcuffed ones) are not dangerous to a pair of police officers and only a true idiot with think otherwise.

He did what he judges had to be done, and he should go to jail for it for a very long time, because it was a seriously bad and criminal act.

Depends what he's allowed to do. As a Sount leader, no matter what a scout does, I am not allowed to physically touch them. Its for my protection against charges of sexual assault etc.

Until I know the exact circumstances, I refuse to judge him. It may have been justified. Saying "she's only 9" is not an excuse, given the kind of shit brats can get up to these days.

Sharp-kun wrote:Depends what he's allowed to do. As a Sount leader, no matter what a scout does, I am not allowed to physically touch them. Its for my protection against charges of sexual assault etc.

He's not a Scout Leader, he's a Police Officer. That means he is allowed to physically handle people, within reason, which this was not.

Until I know the exact circumstances, I refuse to judge him. It may have been justified. Saying "she's only 9" is not an excuse, given the kind of shit brats can get up to these days.

This is something that was never answered. What exactly could she be doing that justifies hitting her with a taser designed to drop a normal sized adult male? It's not hard to restrain 9 year olds, especially when their arms are already bound. They aren't exactly known for their huge physical prowess. Saying that she is only nine is very much a reason to judge him.

Gil Hamilton wrote:

Sharp-Kun wrote:Until I know the exact circumstances, I refuse to judge him. It may have been justified. Saying "she's only 9" is not an excuse, given the kind of shit brats can get up to these days.

This is something that was never answered. What exactly could she be doing that justifies hitting her with a taser designed to drop a normal sized adult male? It's not hard to restrain 9 year olds, especially when their arms are already bound. They aren't exactly known for their huge physical prowess. Saying that she is only nine is very much a reason to judge him.

Something that will never come out into the public eye because the girl is 9. Let the police do their job, we will never know the full circumstances (unless there is a trial, which is a maybe), he may full well have been justified. We don't know the girl's name, mental history, etc. and we can't really judge without knowing all the factors.

I do acknowledge that going by her age alone the situation doesn't look good for the police officer.

What's all this whining? Man, police ought to be required to tazer any retards they meet. Keeps 'em in line.

Gil Hamilton wrote: You moron, a couple of 4 years olds may be dangerous to a 3 year old, but 9 year old girls (particularly handcuffed ones) are not dangerous to a pair of police officers and only a true idiot with think otherwise.

He did what he judges had to be done, and he should go to jail for it for a very long time, because it was a seriously bad and criminal act.

That was both harsh and inaccurate.

Children can bite and bite hard. They can even bite a finger off, if they're crazy enough ("special needs"). Some 9 year olds are heavy enough to cause serious damage with a well placed kick.

Also, a child having an extreme fit can bite his or her tongue open/off, opening up a vein, or they can simply swallow it and choke. A child can also bang his or her head against the car door or seat or whatever and cause brain damage or neck damage.

This situation could have been a danger to the child as well as a danger to an officer.

Gil Hamilton wrote: He's not a Scout Leader, he's a Police Officer. That means he is allowed to physically handle people, within reason, which this was not.

Why was it not within reason? We don't know the details.

Any adult has reason to be worried about being accused of sexual assault these days. As such, I will not judge till I know the details.

Gil Hamilton wrote: This is something that was never answered. What exactly could she be doing that justifies hitting her with a taser designed to drop a normal sized adult male? It's not hard to restrain 9 year olds, especially when their arms are already bound. They aren't exactly known for their huge physical prowess. Saying that she is only nine is very much a reason to judge him.

No, saying "she's only 9" is not a reason. Kids are just as capable of inficting harm as adults, depending on the circumstances which we don't know.
Have you forgetting the thread recently in N&P when 2 girls got some guy locked up for sexual assault because they didn't want to get into trouble for being late? Saying "they were only __ years old" does not excuse actions, except at extremely young ages.