Miami Graffiti Artist Assassination By Taser - Are police relying too much on stun guns?

BTW: I dont agree with vandalism. He shouldn't have done it Pure and simple.
But it still dont change the fact that the cop has no need to shoot him with ANYTHING.

reply to post by hellobruce


For real? you're one of those folks who pulls your pants up to your chest huh? coke bottle glasses on and a comeover?
Just because a person flees from the cops doesn't give them a gd right to shoot them. jeez.

Originally posted by Felipe7126
reply to post by hellobruce

 

For real? you're one of those folks who pulls your pants up to your chest huh? coke bottle glasses on and a comeover?
Just because a person flees from the cops doesn't give them a gd right to shoot them. jeez.

Especially when that person flees non violently!

Originally posted by shaneslaughta

Originally posted by opethPA

He should not have died for his crimes. That is not at debate.
He also should not have made the choice he made to put this chain of events into action.

edit on 12-8-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

Your right he shouldn't have. Whats at debate here is your defense of using force when the kid didn't use force against the cop. do you advocate the taser for running?

Please point out to me where I supported using force?

Ill say it again since you are not understanding me correctly.

1. He should not have died for his crimes
2. One person is responsible for triggering the chain of events that took his life and that's him.

Originally posted by opethPA

Please point out to me where I supported using force?

Ill say it again since you are not understanding me correctly.

1. He should not have died for his crimes
2. One person is responsible for triggering the chain of events that took his life and that's him.

You advocate force by defending and remaining adamant that he is the only one responsible.....the DAMN COP pulled the trigger that ended this kids life.

Sure the kid was there, and sure his actions let to the point where he was busted by the cops. He fled non violently and was taserd and subsequently killed for it.

That is the part that's not right.

Having read the article and posts the following can be stated:

In the article pointed out, the person was committing a crime, and the police came up onto him. They told him to stop, he did not and decided to run. So the police, instead of pulling a lethal weapon, they pulled a taser and gave the suspect a shock, but due to ill health, the person died.

The question is, what would have been the punishment if the guy just gave up and accepted responsibility for his actions, instead of running? Probably probation and a fine, having to do community service, to make amends for breaking the law.

Tasers came around, cause people thought it was wrong that the police would pull a weapon and shoot. And idealy it does not kill.

But here is the other problem, and that is how do you stop a person who has a head start, and what if the person is on some kind of narcotic? What do you tell the family of the officer that ends up in the hospital cause he did not pull his taser or gun? Do you think that is fair?

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate the way society is, and what is and is not valid in the way of laws, rather than condem a person for using what is normally non lethal force, against someone who is breaking the law.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate the way society is, and what is and is not valid in the way of laws, rather than condem a person for using what is normally non lethal force, against someone who is breaking the law.

I cant help but condemn the cop to his choices, same as the kid. It was his fault he was in contact with the cops.
Sure he shouldn't have run, but he shouldn't have been taserd.

There is pepper spray, that stops most anyone. There is a scale of force, and this cop skipped over the most nonlethal one.

I say he was trying to teach the kid a hard lesson for making the cop sweat a bit.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by elouina
A police spokesperson told the NY Times that no crime or negligence had been committed by the police officer and that he can be reinstated at any time.

Why is that alarming? Police were just trying to apprehend a vandal, it is the vandal's fault for running from police.

But the family has questioned why Tasers were needed to subdue a graffiti artist.

What artist? he was just a vandal, damaging someone else's property.

Yeah, big time criminal, really deserves death penalty for painting someone's wall.

PS: Graffiti is, when well performed, a great form of art.

reply to post by JameSimon


Yeah, what is this.....judge dread?

Originally posted by JameSimon
Yeah, big time criminal, really deserves death penalty for painting someone's wall.

PS: Graffiti is, when well performed, a great form of art.

Just like tagging it's still a crime unless prior consent was given.
Philly is a city with a ton of wall murals and they look great.

reply to post by elouina


Another fact about Tazer use is that the use of shock to the nervous system can have long term physiological and psychological result's as it essentially shocks the nerve's into overload, whenever a Tazer is used a certain percentage of nerve's variable by case are killed off so these things should only ever be used in extreme cases were non lethal force is required, Yes they make the officer safer but they may permanently harm the suspect.

There have been studies but the obvious findings are always reported (There is no conclusive evidence, yeah right!) as the sale and support of these things as well as there usefulness would make them loath to stop there deployment.

In the UK our's are only 40.000 volt but even that is enough to harm and as far as I know the state side ones are 50.000 volt.

In the UK civilian ownership is prohibited but they are easily obtained on the black market and they are regarded as offensive weapons.

reply to post by shaneslaughta

That is a myth that most people would like for you to believe. The truth about pepper spray is that it is only as effective as long as the person who is on the receiving end does not eat a lot of hot peppers. What is not stated, and they do not like for you to get that out, is that if a person eats a lot of peppers, then the effects are lessened. And as long as there as you are not down wind of the person, yeah it may work. But here again, what if the person was allergic to peppers, then we would be here discussing about how cruel the officer was using pepper spray and how the person was either in the hospital or died as a result. It is a no win scenario, and ultimately it goes back to personal responsibility and that people need to stop and look at the laws that are being broken, and figure out which are needed and which are not. Vandalism is one that is needed and should be prosecuted.

Hopefully those here who see little problem with this death will not be upset when a traffic stop ends up in the death of a family member at the hands of the police. After all they broke a traffic law.

Originally posted by roadgravel
Hopefully those here who see little problem with this death will not be upset when a traffic stop ends up in the death of a family member at the hands of the police. After all they broke a traffic law.

Please show me which posts say their is little problem with his death?
If you mean their are people saying he made those choices that put himself in that situation, yup I see those.

If someone ran a red light or say turned right when it's clearly signed you should not then thought the right move was to try and escape the police and in that process someone died. I would say the same thing, one person caused those chain of events.

Please tell me how that statement is wrong?

However you spin it the guy broke the law and he then compounded that by thinking running was the right move.
He should not have died for it but he should have also not caused that situation.

People are being killed by police when there is no life threatening situation or one that could be handled in a less lethal manner.

Society seems to be accepting the idea that breaking a law can end up in death is trivial.

I think your wording is wrong. They arent "relying" on tasers too much...but "expecting" tasers to not be lethal and kill someone. Its hopeful to think its better than a bullet. But, its proving not to be.....

So I dont think they are "relying' on them at all. They could just shoot live ammo....so if you mean they rely on tasers to be non-lethal...we know thats noT the case. You can die from them as well....

I guess its about slowing someone down, or using lethal force and maybe kill them. 'Hard to go to court that way, rt?
But, tasered suspects are dying none-the-less these days....

reply to post by alfa1


reply to post by mysterioustranger


I wonder if this 11 year old confused disabled girl feels the same as you? But let me guess, she was too big for a cop to safely subdue her themselves....

Don't run from the police, you will always lose. Immediately put your hands up, shut your mouth and follow instructions. Also, don't break the law. You will live longer. We all know there are bad cops and cops with itchy trigger fingers, don't give them a reason.

reply to post by abe froman


That still doesn't justify being tasered to death.

OP needs to change title to "Sucide By Taser"

Line 2