It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Not that tazing her is the best option but how should you remove her personal effects when she is not being compliant during the booking process? It would have looked equally as bad if they restrained her and then removed the earrings themselves. Lose, lose scenario on this.
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
If they really wanted the personal effects, they would have used a better way to get them.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
If they really wanted the personal effects, they would have used a better way to get them.
Such as?
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Well, once patience and tact run out there are always ultimatums like: "if you don't give us this, we will be forced to remove it for you...your choice."
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
Well, once patience and tact run out there are always ultimatums like: "if you don't give us this, we will be forced to remove it for you...your choice."
Which is what I said earlier. Is six people holding down an older women a good visual? Not really.
I only know one way that was pretty much guaranteed not to get her involved with them physically.
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
If you dont mind, what is the only way that you know they could have handled this without a physical altercation?
originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Who do you think is going to foot the bill for this 1.75million law suit ?
It's funny watching the video, I counted in total 8 officers at one point, 8 of them and their only logical response was to tase a little old lady ?
I only know one way that was pretty much guaranteed not to get her involved with them physically.
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
I was asking what that "one way" is. Or are you being facetious?
originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
originally posted by: Discotech
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Who do you think is going to foot the bill for this 1.75million law suit ?
It's funny watching the video, I counted in total 8 officers at one point, 8 of them and their only logical response was to tase a little old lady ?
this makes me sick... 8 fully grown men cant handle a little old lady? how can anyone defend these "men" with a straight face? are they too scared to fight someone their own size? cowards the whole lot of them!
30 years ago would have cracked her over the head and taken them off
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix
All I have read at this point are excuses.
bullies with badges:
You're gonna get it. This is for your own good. You had this coming. Look what you made me do.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Sparkymedic
I was asking what that "one way" is. Or are you being facetious?
No, I was under the impression that you understood I meant her acquiescing was the only way to avoid a physical confrontation. Continuing to avoid compliance would have eventually resulted in a physical confrontation.
originally posted by: AmericanRealist
What about that restraint chair that keeps you from moving? Could that have helped?? I am sure you know the one I speak of?? The pictures I see online for restraint chair do not have the head strap to keep you from moving your head like the one I saw at the local jail some years back, although that one said patent pending.