Teen falls 30ft; breaks his back, gets tasered 16 times by police.

[ismarc]

Yes, because a white kid mumbling while laying on his back in a suburban part of Missouri where there is zero crime is comparable to an ambush scenario in a warzone.

God damn....are you serious? I've lived in KCMO for 24 years, and Missouri for 32 years total. Branson is one of the safest parts of the state, and a tourist destination when people come here.

The chances of a cop running into a life threatening scenario in Branson are about as likely as him running into Santa Claus. The chances of a cop running into even a remotely bad situation in Branson are slim to none. If a cop is such a pussy that the sight of a helpless teenager in an area with zero crime makes him uneasy, he needs to stop being a cop and go knit sweaters or something.

So all this dumb shit about "lolz being cops is dangerous, it could've been a bad situation for the cops if they wasn't careful" is a bunch of bullshit.

That's funny considering Branson, MO has nearly double the violent crime rate per capita of the rest of the state. source: http://www.idcide.com/citydata/mo/branson.htm

[Beckwin]

Sad thing is, if the kid WERE black, this thread would have gone in a completely different direction, blaming the cops for picking on the "brown people", as Beckwin would say. And yet we see from this case that race didn't matter.

Imagine right now that in a parallel universe where the kid was black, people are arguing right now about race. Little do they know that it played no role.



And the police knew this, how? It probably wasn't the first teenage guy lying on the ground that they've seen. Unless his spine was poking out of his back and he was bent in unnatural ways, I don't think there's any reason to believe the cops knew his injuries and proceeded to taser him for the fun of it.

Yes, there are bad cops, I don't pretend to think all cops are the bastion of light and justice. However, I just don't believe that cops will go out of their way to just do shit like this for the fun of it with full knowledge of the situation. What I think is more likely is that they didn't have all the information, went about the situation like they would anything else, and when they discovered he was injured, they covered their asses with their story. But I strongly doubt they arrived on scene, went "Cool, a kid with a broken back! Let's go tase him!", gave each other high fives, then went to shock him a few times before letting the medics treat him.

except there was more than one officer on the scene, and the victim was a 16 year old who was lying on the ground unable to move, mumbling some odd anti-cop gibberish. I'm pretty sure police don't have to taser incapacitated street drunks multiple times, including ones that say stupid things.

The problem is unnecessary/excessive taser use in a non-violent situation. the kid's back being broken just absolutely confirms how off-base the cops were in the first place- removing any and all possible excuse/necessity for using the taser, leading to the attempt at covering their asses like you describe.

[Tomk]

I have 2 ways of looking at this:

First, if this happened on the 50th floor of a Class A office building by a lawyer who happened to have an inner ear infection. Lets say that someone who didn't know this lawyer saw him staggering down the steps and called 911 worried about him. He ends-up falling three flights and breaking his back. I GUARANTEE that the cops won't even reach for their tasers.

On the other hand, if I were to imagine situations of teenagers lying on the side of the road unconscious, I can't think of many that wouldn't involve drugs. It usually holds true that motto of "where there is smoke there is fire". The virgin captain of the cheerleading squad is going to be in the back of her mom's minivan, not on the side of the road.

[Cyn]

Nice try, but it's "higher than the state average". Cities almost always have higher crime rates than the state average to to lower crime rates in rural areas. Please take note of the fact that there was only 1 murder there in the 6 years shown on the page that you offered as proof of Branson being a veritable war zone.

[hexagram23]

That's funny considering Branson, MO has nearly double the violent crime rate per capita of the rest of the state. source: http://www.idcide.com/citydata/mo/branson.htm

Don't be a moron and use "per capita". It's misleading. In 2006 Branson had 1 murder....in KC we had 100+. The reason the results are skewed to make Branson look worse is because it has a population of only 7,000. So 1 murder or 9 rapes per 7,000 makes it seem like it's a warzone. It's not. I've been to Branson on vacation and it's about as threatening as a cool spring breeze

[Cyn]

I have 2 ways of looking at this:

First, if this happened on the 50th floor of a Class A office building by a lawyer who happened to have an inner ear infection. Lets say that someone who didn't know this lawyer saw him staggering down the steps and called 911 worried about him. He ends-up falling three flights and breaking his back. I GUARANTEE that the cops won't even reach for their tasers.

On the other hand, if I were to imagine situations of teenagers lying on the side of the road unconscious, I can't think of many that wouldn't involve drugs. It usually holds true that motto of "where there is smoke there is fire". The virgin captain of the cheerleading squad is going to be in the back of her mom's minivan, not on the side of the road.

Now you're just making shit up.

[Tomk]

Now you're just making shit up.

That's where I keep all of my virgin cheerleaders.

[Khamsin]

I'm pretty sure police don't have to taser incapacitated street drunks multiple times, including ones that say stupid things.

Maybe they do. Afterall, unless you assume the officers had ESP or a keen medical eye, there wasn't much difference between this and any other situation they might have been in before. If they did it this time, perhaps they really do use the taser routinely in other situations.

That is, unless you can come up with some sort of reason they preferred to use it in this scenario. But given the lack of a race card, or any other prejudice argument that you are fond of using, there's really no reason for them to treat this kid differently than anyone else.

For all we know, maybe they just use it as a safer method of poking at someone to see if they are alert or responsive. Some people put their hand on your shoulder and shake gently to see if you are ok. Cops might prefer to keep their distance and shake them with a taser.

If you use a stick, they could grab it from you and hit you with it. If you lean in close, they could stab at you or grab your gun. This allows them to shake someone gently to make sure they are ok from afar.

...ok, so even I agree that it's sort of excessive for that use, but really, they had to have had some reason to do it (no matter how unjustified or inappropriate in retrospect) and I really really doubt they just did it for fun, laughing all the while, because he had a broken back.

[Cyn]

Yeah but why store them? They're not virgin cheerleaders anymore after even a single use.

[Tomk]

Yeah but why store them? They're not virgin cheerleaders anymore after even a single use.

Now who's making shit up?

[Cyn]

Maybe they do. Afterall, unless you assume the officers had ESP or a keen medical eye, there wasn't much difference between this and any other situation they might have been in before. If they did it this time, perhaps they really do use the taser routinely in other situations.

That is, unless you can come up with some sort of reason they preferred to use it in this scenario. But given the lack of a race card, or any other prejudice argument that you are fond of using, there's really no reason for them to treat this kid differently than anyone else.

For all we know, maybe they just use it as a safer method of poking at someone to see if they are alert or responsive. Some people put their hand on your shoulder and shake gently to see if you are ok. Cops might prefer to keep their distance and shake them with a taser.

If you use a stick, they could grab it from you and hit you with it. If you lean in close, they could stab at you or grab your gun. This allows them to shake someone gently to make sure they are ok from afar.

...ok, so even I agree that it's sort of excessive for that use, but really, they had to have had some reason to do it (no matter how unjustified or inappropriate in retrospect) and I really really doubt they just did it for fun, laughing all the while, because he had a broken back.

Nice save at the end... I almost didn't make it that far though, because my palm was over my face, making it hard to see.

[Khamsin]

Yeah but why store them? They're not virgin cheerleaders anymore after even a single use.

Virgin cheerleaders are good for up to three uses.

[Cyn]

Oh, there's no denying that. But it's better to store the ones that have been used once in the "Hot Young Cheerleader" bin, so as to preserve the freshness of the virgin ones.

[Melchiah]

No one is arguing that the cops tased the kid because they thought it might be funny to fuck with a critically injured person. The point here is that they reacted without understanding the scene, and as it turns out, their response ended up being further injury to a person who was not even any type of suspect in the first fucking place. Thank god it was only tasers, what if they jumped the gun with guns? No pun intended.

[Kuya]

Ismarc's post is exactly the kind of mentality i was fearing, having cops treat civilians like they're terrorists in Afghanistan. Sounds like someone's slippery slope nightmare of a post 9/11 world.

[Khamsin]

No one is arguing that the cops tased the kid because they thought it might be funny to fuck with a critically injured person. The point here is that they reacted without understanding the scene, and as it turns out, their response ended up being further injury to a person who was not even any type of suspect in the first fucking place. Thank god it was only tasers, what if they jumped the gun with guns? No pun intended.

I think it'd be a completely different story if they had shot him 19 times with their guns.

[Melchiah]

I think it'd be a completely different story if they had shot him 19 times with their guns.

Yes, but now we are arguing magnitude of unacceptable responses, instead of should they handled the situation differently or not.

I think the tasers was a severe error on the part of the police department. Like I outlined earlier, it's either a department policy on confronting an unknown that needs revision, or the officers on the scene were just making shit up as they went. A taser is used to get someone under control, NOT to get a response. You don't need to get a critically injured man under control... and you sure don't pull out your fucking taser and zap him simply because he can't or doesn't respond to you. That is just fucking stupid. Furthermore, tasing someone 19 times is unnecessary, tasing a critically injured person is gross misconduct.

[aurik]

I think it'd be a completely different story if they had shot him 19 times with their guns.

For one, that story is set in New York.

[Khamsin]

Yes, but now we are arguing magnitude of unacceptable responses, instead of should they handled the situation differently or not.

I think the tasers was a severe error on the part of the police department. Like I outlined earlier, it's either a department policy on confronting an unknown that needs revision, or the officers on the scene were just making shit up as they went. A taser is used to get someone under control, NOT to get a response. You don't need to get a critically injured man under control... and you sure don't pull out your fucking taser and zap him simply because he can't or doesn't respond to you. That is just fucking stupid. Furthermore, tasing someone 19 times is unnecessary, tasing a critically injured person is gross misconduct.

I guess we have to define what an acceptable response is, in a situation of limited understanding and foreknowledge.

Also keep in mind that tasers are probably encouraged within their department as a nonlethal inconsequential tool that can be freely used. Maybe that'll change if they keep getting complaints, but the whole reason for their introduction into the force in the first place was as a quick and painless alternative to things like guns and billy clubs when such things aren't warranted.

Besides, the last time anyone died from a taser was months ago, it's been pretty good so far. It mostly is just deemed as rude and inappropriate because people don't like the thought of being tased. In reality, it's the "softest" thing the police have used, yet.

[Cyn]

You do know that there have been over 300 taser related deaths in the United States since they were issued to police in 2001 right?

Edit: That's 300+ people killed by what's increasingly being seen as a first resort solution to any hesitation in obedience. I mean fuck, just google taser, I promise, you'll see plenty of footage of cops using tasers with almost no provocation. Basically like "Do this now!" /wait 3 "Ok buddy, you were warned!" /zap. Cops have been using them on suspects ALREADY IN HANDCUFFS. I mean... wtf?