Police use stun guns on greased, naked student (CNN)

:wtf:

:shrug:

So I shall call attention to it. :patriot:

Stun guns are just a way to cut to the chase and get 'er done. I can see the cops using them anytime a few more millisecs of their precious time looks like it will be wasted. So now they can torture anyone for being a 'distraction'.

It's MUCH easier to point a weapon and pull the trigger than to use your brain and some muscles to get a situation under control.

Seems to me that those Tasers come out whenever some cops are in danger of doing some actual work.

In fact, it seems to be fun to use, based on the number of times it's used in every day situations.

less than lethal, get over it.

:shrug:

Every member of the public is "them"

But Westerville is a rather posh suburb.

The rich are different, I guess. :)

Why use an expensive oil? Only a low-life would use corn oil. :)

Like in the movie "Back to the Future". Anything would work for a time machine, why use a DeLorean?

You certainly don't want to use olive oil, vegetable oil, or lard because if you do get tasered you may ignite right there!

I would imagine the suburb cops don't get a chance to use tasers often, he must have suspected they had itchy trigger fingers.

"There was no indication of substance abuse or a medical problem."

And made a fruitcake salad.

:shrug:
















edit:......j u s t a j o k e.

One: The student was 18 years old, legally an adult.

Two: He had a full beard, had greased up his body and was fucking naked in a high school lunch room.

Three: The officer working in the school normally worked at a different school and did not recognize him as a student (although in my opinion, it wouldn't have made any difference if he recognized him or not).

Four: A school administrator tried to stop the naked, greased up, bearded adult student and the student made a sexual gesture at the administrator.

Five: After he repeatedly refused to cooperate and was tazed the first time, he got up and rushed towards a group of terrified students who were screaming in fear.

From the article:

Officer Doug Staysniak was monitoring the lunch period when Killian, with long hair and a full beard, ran in the room toward students, who screamed and ran away. The officer is normally assigned to a middle school and did not recognize Killian as a student, Gaylor said.

Police said that an administrator ordered Killian to stop, but that the student made a sexual gesture and kept running.

Now I don't know about you guys, but if a naked adult runs into my kid's school lunchroom and is screaming and making sexual gestures towards the school faculty, resisting the lawful commands of an officer and pre-planned his attack to make it difficult for him to be physically caught, I say tazer him, get him in custody and get him the fuck out of my kids school.

What would you have done differently?

Is it okay for officers to use any force on resisting subjects or should they just let them run around, terrorizing and possibly injuring people, until they get tired and fall asleep?

Oh yeah, and cop had not caught the sweet little screaming greased up naked bearded masturbating cherub and he had hurt another kid, some of you would be screaming about what a coward the cop was and how derelict he was in his duty by not stopping the pervert.

The suspect in an arrest controls the amount of force used by an officer. Check out the escalation of force taught to police officers and you will better understand what officers are thinking when they apply force to suspects. It starts with verbal commands and goes up to deadly force. There are, obviously abuses of use of force by some officers, but the majority, I believe, use force judiciously and the way they are taught. From this article, this officer used only the neccessary force needed to stop the suspect and put him under arrest.

Give me, and some of the cops who are just doing their jobs, a break.

For those of you interested in the subject, I encourage you to read the following article on the use of force continuum, created in 1982 to guide officers and create a training method that could be consistently applied across the country and to also train officers on what levels of force could be used legally and minimally to control a resisting suspect.

how cops were able to apprehend folks like this the old fashioned way BEFORE tasers! :grr: :mad: yeah, i have a HUGE problem with tasers!!

:rofl:

officers had to put their hands on suspects or use "less than lethal" PR-24 batons or, later, expanding steel batons (ASPS), neither of which are particularly effective, in my experience, of actually bringing a suspect down. The earlier options were bar arm choke holds, which proved to be lethal much too often, carotid artery choke holds were supposed to be less lethal than the bar-arm but it is extremely difficult to place a carotid choke correctly and hold it in the proper position with an actively resisting suspect. Even when done correctly, the carotid choke hold is designed to interrupt the supply of blood and oxygen to the brain rendering the suspect unconscious; a pretty dangerous alternative. The other options include hand and knee strikes and pain compliance techniques, all of which are hard to apply effectively to a greased naked person. Pepper spray is usually effecive when used at close range but is discouraged in crowded areas where innocent bystanders would be affected by the overspray.

If these methods are not effective, the suspect forces the escalation of tactics to include lethal force.

Look up "use of force continuum" and read it if you are interested in the subject.

Also look up a great comedy piece by Chris Rock called "How not to get your ass beat by the cops" it is very funny but also pretty true.

There are too many people here who immediately jump on the cop bashing bandwagon without knowing anything about the subject.

he didn't have a weapon, so "lethal force" was not necessary. tackling him would've done the job, but guess that was just too much "hard work" for them, huh? :eyes:

They could have tackled him, but could they hold onto him?

Heaven forbid we forget about personal responsibility. Let's just assume this poor lad did nothing and it was the big, bad police who are at fault here.

I'm Sure they had towels for showers not to mention other things this wasn't a catch the Greased pig contest at the county fair were you can only use your hands. its a shame that most police never use that 3 pound lump of meat between there ears maybe they wont get such a bad image.
Throw something on him so you can grab hold and or something that soaks up the grease But most rent a cops aren't paid to think as long as they and aim straight your hired.

and handcuff a resisting person? Let alone a naked greased up one who was screaming and flailing about.

here is an excercise for you:

Get a friend to resist while you try to take him to the ground,put his arms behind his back and handcuff him. Oh yeah, make sure he can't grab your gun and take it away from you while you are doing this or overpower you and beat the crap out of you. See if you can find one who is about 18 years old, wrestles, runs track, swims competitively, has a background in martial arts and then, just for laughs, have him strip naked and grease himself up with grapeseed oil. Now put on 40 pounds of protective gear and equipment, try to use a radio to communicate with your dispatcher, use one hand to retrieve your handcuffs and simultaneously wrestle your "suspect to the ground and get him handcuffed.

Should be easy enough.

Oh yeah, make sure the whole time that you have to be concerned about the safety of a couple of hundred kids, keep in mind that if any of those kids in the lunchroom are hurt by the crazy naked guy, you will be sued personally by the kids families and that the suspect will also probably sue you, just because. Also any of your actions can and will be reviewed by your immediate supervisor and possibly the internal affairs department and that you could lose your job if you make a mistake. You must also react to a rapidly changing stressful incident in a few seconds and make the correct decision every time or face serious consequences. Also know that the media and people on websites all across the country will disect every second of your reaction and publish their ill-informed opinions criticizing you and questioning your bravery, intelligence and manliness.

This is for the anti-tazer people as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=63253

Check the update at the bottom, too.

In this post, the kid had a sword and had already killed his mom, wounded two more teens, and attacking a cop with said sword when he was shot dead by police. And still, the same people are going "oh, why didn't they use non-lethal force?"

Swords are a deadly weapon, same as a baseball bat or any other weapon, in a case like that, using a firearm, or a taser, IS called for. What many people object to is the ABUSE and MISUSE of tasers, which were billed, and are billed as a non-letal ALTERNATIVE to a firearm, but are, too often, not used that way. No one in their right mind would have shot the guy in THIS thread, being unarmed and not threatening anyone directly.

My point is that to some people, despite how justified the act of violence was, will argue against it. Recall the case of the NYC woman in a wheelchair a few months ago. A mugger grabbed for purse and her necklace, and she drew a revolver and wounded the guy. A fair number of people were upset because the poor criminal got hurt!

I think that because of the risk of having an apparently off-kilter naked sex maniac running around a school full of teen-age girls, the cop acted on the strong side of appropriate. Consider:

A panic in the lunchroom could have lead to serious injuries or death as panicked students tried to flee through doorways or down steps (assuming steps are there, of course).

The officer is only one person trying to catch a student in a maze of tables. Without help, this is virtually impossible.

The student escaping into the school could have lead to a hostage situation or attacks on other students. Even running from the police into a crowded hallway can result in collisions between the naked guy and students, knocking kids onto the hard floor. Again, risk of injury.

The use of pepper spray on a distant, agile target is difficult. And, again, the riot factor as students try to escape the fumes. And about one person in three hundred is allergic to pepper spray, with potentially fatal results.

Backup was not immediately available, and the situation was evolving very quickly.

:eyes:

It would have made more sense to "wrestle him" Becasue most police "wrestle" suspects, they don't use their batons or guns.

Amazing.

Yes, police were able to handle several types of problems before Tasers.

And how many of those incidents ended up with the police officer or suspect dead?

We live in a completely different world now. School shootings, violence against students and teachers on the rise, and other risks toward kids in school.

The police did what they had to do. Sorry. The safety of the children was their primary concern. If the "boy" refused to stop after repeated commands he has no one to blame for it but himself.

He was being disruptive, but was obviously unarmed, where in the article does it state that he could have killed someone?

I refer to the "handling things like this before Tasers" comment.

And, sorry, as long as a person has 2 hands and items within their reach they're never "unarmed".

People are always so quick to judge and second guess the police. I'm always amazed at the number of times people talk about news articles only giving part of the story, when they find it convenient to do so, but when it suits their personal prejudices "part of the story" is more than enough to talk about how the cops coulda, shoulda, woulda handled it.

Am I saying there were no other alternatives? No. I wasn't there. I can't say what the situation was, nor how or why the police did what they did. Just as no one else here can judge why the police felt they needed to do what they did.

right out of anyone looking at him........:sarcasm:

A naked guy killed a cop in the Seattle area a few years back. The officer hesitated to shoot him because he was unarmed, and the perp got his gun in a struggle - shot the cop execution-style, if I remember correctly.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

show me where I stated "fascist cops".

All of the comments prior to my post were slamming the cop in the situation as a coward or lazy.

The title of your post, in my opinion, is an editorial comment.

The way it is worded would tend to make the casual reader think the action of the officer was out of line. I read the article and think the officer used "reasonable force".

If you had titled the OP:

Greased and Naked Masturbating Adult Terrifies Young Teens in High School Lunchroom, Resists Arrest

The resulting comments may have been different.

news.

again, no editorial comment on my part.

I didn't mean to criticize you, just the comments following the OP. I just get really upset by the constant cop bashing that goes on here.

at least you didn't taze me :P

It is you who are reading into it. You would rather shade the CNN headline from the subject being a "student" to his being an "adult"; you would exaggerate the age difference of two years (the youngest high schoolers there would be 10th graders, but you would have them be "young"); you would read into the reported "sexual gesture" he made as, of course, being masturbation. In the interest of defending the officer's choice here, you grossly overstate your case.

18 years of age is an adult. In my state, the youngest age high schoolers are ninth graders and usually 13-14 years old, I consider that young. What would you assume the term "sexual gesture" to be if made by a naked male?

In fact the article headline is wrong in the use of the plural "guns" when only one "gun" was used.

Please tell me again how I grossly overstated my case?

Your desire to word things so that the "casual reader" would know that the officer was not "out of line" would be a classic editorial judgment. You would refer to the subject not by his relationship to the setting but by his legal status. You would exaggerate the age difference amongst the students (you're exaggerating now, saying 9th graders are 13 year olds). By characterizing the subject as an adult in an incident that takes place in a school, your headline would create an impression that the subject was a nonstudent. Which would mean either a school staff member or some kind of intruder. You would be misleading the reader entirely.

The fact that you feel compelled to assume anything beyond what the story reports tips your hand. The story says that he "made a sexual gesture" to the administrator—therefore, I don't know what he did and can't assume anything. However, in thinking about what you imagine that to mean, I must say I have never heard the description of what teenagers—or men of any age—do while reading porn magazines, for example, as "making sexual gestures." LOL! Just in case, I googled "making sexual gestures to porn" and got nothing. The phrase is apparently not a well-known synonym for masturbation.

You assume a lot. You assumed the OP wrote the headline, without checking DU rules. You assume, without checking, that middle school grades are the same in Ohio as they are in your state. You assume that when the reporter wrote "sexual gesture" he really meant masturbation.

Your zeal to presumptively defend the officer (in a story that does not attack him) leads you to insist too hard that he was right without even having been on the scene, to see for yourself if he might have been wrong. You are determined to predetermine, and that is dangerous.

or must have been some kind of Cop.

That's how they fudge Police Reports to their advantage exactly as you describe!

How do we know these guys didn't fudge their Reports and the News reported
the Cop's fudged Reports to the Public about this naked kid?

It happens so often I don't even trust them anymore!

Anyway, nice call! :rofl:

maybe that cop was bored and then just picked out a random kid, stripped him, greased him up and then threw him in the middle of the lunchroom just to make himself look like a hero.

:P

I'd feel the same way if this was happening in my daughter's school.

with them tazing your daughter if she was the one naked and greased up.

but I will play your game. If my 7 year old daughter decides at the age of eighteen to break the law and scream and run around naked and greased up at her high school and then refuses to obey the school administrator and a police officer and actively resists arrest, then no, I wouldn't have a problem with an officer tazing her to place her under arrest. I would have a big problem with my child's behavior and would make her apologize to the school and the officer and the student body.

That is what we, in my house, call personal responsibility or consequences for one's actions.

first responding to a comment not directed at you, then saying that you would force your adult daughter to apologize because she embarrassed you. good luck with that.

it may have been a ridiculous comment, but you bit.

I was under the impression that this was a discussion board and we could respond to any of the comments.

As to my response, it was a hypothetical directed at a hypothetical and as my daddy used to say, "when you are under my roof..." yada yada yada.

And yes, I do like to be in control of my children and hold them accountable for their actions. It is something I like to call responsible parenting and I have two awesome kids who don't, so far, terrorize other people or act inappropriately in school.

With the disclaimer that in many cases tasers are used unnecessarily.

BUT IN THIS CASE, tasing was necessary.

but it's sooo much easier to blame police than to actually be a police officer.

I have 2 neighbors who are permanently disabled police officers because of having to physically apprehend people. One no longer has a knee, the other's back has 3 bones fused together.

Much safer for everybody if the person is tasered.

Tasers are supposed to be a supplement or replacement for a FIREARM, this guy was obviously unarmed, and therefore deadly force was NOT called for.

but it is incorrect. Tazers are not a replacement for a firearm, they are a less than lethal alternative and part of the continuum of force taught to police officers. They are higher up on the level than grappling but lower than firearms. Some departments now teach the use of the tazer before hands on physical confrontations because it results in less injury to the officers and the suspects than traditional physical combat.

If the officer hadn't had the tazer, he would have resorted to physical restraint, knee strikes and closed hand strikes to bring the suspect down or he could have used an asp baton or pepper spray. Believe me, I would prefer the tazer to being sprayed or struck.

Pain compliance is also used to restrain a resistant person and to get them to comply or submit to arrest. This includes pressure points, joint locks and strikes to nerve bundles. Again, I would prefer the tazer.

Check out the post the kid put up. He wasn't seriously hurt and appears to be bragging about getting tazed...twice!

He made the decision to resist. He dictated the level of force used by the officer. The officer followed his training and did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, he did it exactly right.

Is there any situation that a taser isn't called for? They are more lethal than many other methods of subduing suspects, so why aren't they treated as such?

... well, if the cop yells "stop and get on the ground", then the allegedly greased naked kid stops and gets on the ground. In that case, I'd think a Taser is not called for.

That wasn't the case here. A Taser seems like a reasonable escalation, if bhe kid's behavior was accurately reported.

1. I don't think UCLA uses rent-a-cops. I believe they have a campus police department with trained and licensed police officers. I do think that the force used in that particular case was unwarranted and probably will result in a succesful lawsuit. I also think the UCLA student could have chosen to comply and do what the officers told him to at any point in that confrontation and that force would not have been used on him. Pain compliance has nothing to do with tasers it has to do with wrist and joint locks and pressure points usually involving nerve clusters over bone which are digitally or mechanically pressured to produce compliance from resisting suspects.

2. Yes there are situations the taser is not called for. Those situations are the ones in which an arrested person complies with the orders of the officer or there is overwhelming numbers on the officers side or the suspect is much smaller and weaker than the arresting officer. There is no such thing as a fair fight when it comes to being arrested. The officer must always use superior force or weapons. Each escalation by the suspect results in the next higher level of force being used by the officer. That is the way they are trained and it results in less injuries to suspects, officers, victims of the suspects and innocent bystanders.

3. I wonder if you can back up your assertion that tasers are more lethal than other methods for subduing suspects. I would like to review the scientific data that you based that on. I would tend to believe that tasers have actually reduced the numbers of injuries and deaths than "other methods" that I mentioned before (strikes, holds etc.) but that is just a guess. I could try to research it and get back to you if you would like.

4. There is always at least one weapon on any scene, the officer's, it can be taken away and many officers have been shot with their own weapons. It is funny to me that people who have no experience in law enforcement are always willing to throw in their opinions and arm chair quarterbacking to tell the officer how he should have done it. Cops usually don't know who they are arresting and have no idea how a person is going to react. When the suspect is acting mentally unstable, the situation is even more dangerous and less predictable. I arrested a suspect one time after receiving a call about a signal 8 subject. I made contact with him and tried to talk to him. He was saying he was Jesus Christ and the demons were coming to get him. He refused to show me his hands and was covered up with a blanket. He made threatening statements to me and ran away from me when I tried to search him. I chased him for three blocks and sprayed him with pepper spray when he turned and charged me. He fell to the ground and I handcuffed him and called for a prisoner transport. Turns out the guy had killed his wife six hours earlier by slicing her throat with a samarai sword. I didn't have a taser but I would have used it. According to your logic, the guy was unarmed and threatening no one at the time of his arrest. He didn't have any weapons on him at the time of the arrest and many here would question me stopping him and field interviewing him for acting crazy. He wasn't violating any laws at the time and was just a guy on a college campus who didn't belong there, refused to show i.d. and refused to cooperate with me (the investigating officer). If I had let him go and he had hurt someone else, I would have been personally liable for that act and I would have felt terrible that I didn't prevent him from hurting someone. The point is, cops don't know who they are dealing with and they can't rely the good will of people they are arresting. They also don't have the benefit of hindsight and all the information that the readers of the next days news story have.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR511392004

It basically mirrors the same concerns I have.

Also, just a note on your first answer, I thought the UCLA cops didn't have "arrest authority" but had to call the police to arrest the individual, they could only detain them temporarily. Also, the student in question was TRYING to comply, they wanted him to leave, he tried to leave, they stopped him, and then tased him 3 times.

By the way, look at his link, its a PDF, but shows UCLA's policy regarding taser use:

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser_Policies.pdf

Specifically look on the second page, at this:

6) CRITERIA FOR USE - DRIVE STUN
Authorized personnel may use a Taser in a drive stun capacity, as a pain compliance technique, in the following situations.
A) To eliminate physical resistance from an arrestee in accomplishing an
arrest or physical search.
B) When a skirmish line is deployed and/or for pain compliance against
passive resistors as allowed in UCLA Police Policy § 301.24 (Pain
Compliance Techniques).
C) To stop a dangerous animal.

UCPD are police officers

Under the direction of a Sergeant, Police Officers are expected to perform regular law enforcement duties including: foot, bicycle and vehicle patrol of University of California properties (campus, medical centers, Westwood properties and nearby residential areas), investigate and prepare preliminary investigation reports, issue citations, make arrests, assist in the prosecution of violators of law, provide crime prevention information and serve as a proactive resource to a uniquely diverse community. Officers may also work as part of a security detail with civilian and other law enforcement agencies at university and athletic events. Officers have the opportunity to participate in a number of assignments such as bicycle patrol, motorcycle patrol, various training instructors, detectives, backgrounds, crime prevention, field training officer, accident investigator and various lead officer positions.

From the amnesty report:

Some police departments have reported a significant fall in police shootings following the introduction of tasers. In February 2004, the Phoenix Police Department, Arizona, announced that officer-involved shootings had fallen by 54% from 28 in 2002 to 13 in 2003, with fatal shootings down from 13 to 9 during the same period, the lowest number since 1990. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said "I am proud that Phoenix is the first city in the nation to equip all of our police officers with tasers. We are committed to providing our officers with the latest technology, support and equipment that they need in order to protect them and the community."(26) A Taser International brochure reported that use of firearms and impact weapons by Orange County (Florida) sheriff’s deputies fell by 80% following the introduction of the Advanced Taser in 2000, "reducing injuries and saving lives".(27)

Reports of a fall in police shootings in the cities of Seattle and Miami have similarly been attributed, at least in part, to the introduction of tasers. Both police departments reported no fatal police shootings for the first time more than a decade in the year tasers were introduced – in Miami’s case there were no police shootings, fatal or otherwise, for the first time in 14 years.(28) Other departments have reported on specific instances where officers have used tasers instead of firearms to disarm suicidal or mentally ill individuals armed with weapons such as knives, although reports of officers using tasers when confronted with people with guns appear to be much rarer.

It would seem that the anecdotal evidence points to tasers being responsible for a significant drop in officer involved shooting deaths. I read a pretty good amount of the report and it appears to re-enforce the use of tasers as a "less than lethal weapon" that results in fewer deaths. The report lists 74 people who died after being tasered but it qualifies the figure by reporting that many of those who died were also high on drugs or extremely intoxicated which may have contributed to the deaths. If you extapolate the data from the few police departments specifically mentioned in the report the data would seem to prove that tasers have reduced the number of deaths resulting from police arrests, not increased them.

The report also states that many agencies are setting new policies and procedures to minimize the use of tasers and set up specific guidlines for their use to reduce the number of times the taser is used and to give the officers specific guidelines to give them the ability to judge when and when not to use them.

By the way, I disagree with the use of the taser against passive resisters as advocated in the UCPD guidlines. I don't think the taser should be used against anyone unless they are actively resisting arrest by force.

...had the equipment existed to do so back in the 1970s? Wake up. His guy would have run out of steam and would have to deal with the ramifications of his particular display of humor in the end taser of no taser.

The cops - as usual - made a minor incident far more violent and complicated then it should have been.

There are some people here who seem to simply HATE cops and the tazer. Yeah, it's shocking (no pun intended) when a cop does something wrong because we place so much power and authority in them. But it's statistically rare. On the whole, they're good people doing a very difficult job (just like teachers).

On which he brags and jokes about the incident in question. Also notice his school sports credits: wrestling, hockey, skiing, tai kwon do, soccer, swimming and track.

Sounds like he is not too upset about the officers reaction, in fact, his attitude seems to be the whole thing was funny.

Poor sweet kid.

Hi, I'm Taylor Killian.

I live in Westerville, OH and I am a high school student. I have been working with computers for about ten years, or since I was seven. I know how to work with many platforms (*nix, Windows, Xbox, etc.). I am also a programmer and love doing it. I have been in many competitions and won many awards for it. In addition I have recently been in a summer camp to learn how to use supercomputers and work in parallel. I have my own very incomplete website at http://www.xbaud.com and run it off my local computer and internet. I have also been involved in many school sports such as wrestling, hockey, sking, ti kwon do (OK, so I can't spell), soccer, swimming and track. Alright, thats it until I get motivated to write more here.

I used my superfast track skills to run quickly through the lunch room at Westerville North High School, at approx. 12:10 P.M. on Monday January 29 2007. I was naked, and greased up, but I danced very well, even for Mr. Will. Unfortunately, I was shot twice with a taser, and then taken to jail.

You can view a full news report at the following site. http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2007-01-29-0001.html

Here's the complete text of the article: Officer Shoots Naked Student With Taser Gun -- Twice

Monday, Jan 29, 2007 - 04:00 PM

http://www.xbox-linux.org/wiki/User:Taylor_Killian


Here is a local news report including video report and the mugshot of the "student".

http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2007-01-29-0001.html

Read and listen to the whole story and then decide if the use of force was appropriate.

reading his website post, this incident seems to be a rite of passage for him -- all the better that he was TAZED (dude!).

it sounds like a garden variety prank meant to distinguish himself in his social group. it's all the more spectacular with the TAZING. he's obviously a smart kid... i'm betting he's also the kind of kid who doesn't like/want to be labeled as smart/geek/nerd... he welcomes trouble as that is waaaaaay preferable to being a brain.

I've encountered jerks like this guy before--though most of the jerks I encounter aren't as stupid in creating disruption. When they leave high school and come to college, they are just as disruptive there.


At any rate, the guy is skilled in martial arts and wrestling. The police averted a potential disaster, had they chosen to physically engage this guy.

Methinks this kid needs a couple of parents with elbows and a good hickory switch with which to massage his ego.

I hope this doesn't devolve into a debate about how the parents should have spanked the kid when he was younger... :)

But NOW wouldn't be a bad time to start.

Despite the controversy behind the whole taser thing, I can't help but laugh at this story...

Anyways, judging by the story it seems like it was simply a prank by some dumbass kid trying to get some laughs... Why taser the guy? It doesn't sound like he was a risk to anyone, or himself... He wanted attention, if ignored(as in sent all the other students inside) then he would have had his fun, and then could have been dealt with later(given an award if it was up to me :P )

Btw, I'm not an anti-taser person like many on this thread. I think they can be useful in certain situations in which someone is capable of being harmful to themselves or others. However, in situations like this it isn't worth the possible risk associated with using it... I doubt many others would disagree with me on this, right?

I suppose one could also argue that the cops and school officials didn't know it was simply a prank at the time... Dammit, I always have to complicate things with my 'thoughts'... Hmmm, I dunno. Either way, he was naked and unless he shoved a weapon up his butt, I don't think he was a threat to anyone... Unless of course he was doing something not mentioned in the article.

until naked guy is there all by himself.

Then just block the exits and wait for him to streak himself out until he's exhausted or bored enough to surrender.

Prank? Sounds like a complete lunatic. Frightened students nearby? There's something seriously wrong with the guy.. there's more to this story, I guarantee you. I'm around high school students all the time, this is not a normal behavior.. even for a prank. I would have stunned him as well.

He'll be in college soon... Sounds pretty typical of many college campuses.

That's something else entirely. In college that would be considered going on a beer run and forgetting your wallet (and clothes).

I actually just made a post kind of arguing aginst my point...

with yourself :)

Depening on how you look at it.

depending on which part of your personality is dominant at the time

Sorry, I teach part time at a college. If someone were running around out building naked, terrorizing people, and he refused to stop or leave when ordered to, I'd coldcock the SOB. That sort of behavior will get you imprisoned just as quickly in college as it will in high school. Remember, this guy wasn't just streaking through the quad, he was mading sexual gestures towards people (which qualifies as sexual harassment, grounds for expulsion at our college) and was knowingly terrorizing people. That's unacceptable on any campus.

Should he have been tazed? I don't know, I wasn't there. Depends on his physical size...a large naked man can do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders even without a weapon.

college. Greased naked men running around college campuses? I don't think so.

Most parents would take a dim view of their 15-year-old daughter seeing some guy's naked johnson being waved around and stroked.

are generally not on the officers belt. It's not like it the bat utility belt you know.

How about this:

If you don't want to be tazed, don't run around a high school cafeteria screaming, naked, greased up flailing your arms, charging at groups of students and shaking your penis at a school official who tries to get you to stop. Also don't run away from an officer and resist when he tells you to stop.

That should keep you from getting tazed in that situation.

But yeah, it's generally a sure thing that if you're running around naked in front of the cops that it's going to end badly for you.

Told the naked screaming guy to hold on a moment, gone back into the cafeteria, opened an industrial sized maple syrup jar and about 30 miniature boxes of rice crispies and corn flakes then gone back into the cafeteria gently coated the young lad in the syrup and then roll him gently in the crushed corn flakes and rice crispies. Then he would have been able to get a firm but supportive grip on him and lower him gently to a pre-positioned nap mat and lulled him to sleep with a lullaby or two and, when he was sleeping peacefully, carried him to a waiting pre-heated paddy wagon.

"bat utility belt"

That just made my day.

Thank you for all your posts though. I feel the same way you do. The cop bashing here makes me want to vomit. As a former spouse of a law enforcement officer it is just really insulting.

Some people here see a few stories about a few bad cops and now every cop is bad. I want you to stop and think about it this way. How many stories do you see in the news about black males being arrested for ? So since you see so many of those stories then all black males must be criminals right? That is exactly the rationale the cop bashers use here.

You don't hear about the many cops that will save a life today, or the ones who might take a child molester off the street, or the ones who arrest that drunk driver before he takes plows into a family, or the ones who take an abusive husband off to jail, trying to keep the wife safe. You don't see the corrections officers that deal with the worst of society so you do not have to, and they do it without weapons, completely out-numbered. Instead many here demonize those who stand between us and those who would do us harm and prefer instead to make angels out of those criminals.

or cops themselves seem to realize that, as in any profession, there are good and bad and only idiots define an entire gruop of people by the actions of a few.

I used to be a cop, my best friend is one as is my Father in-law, they are truly decent good people who do an incredibly difficult job and it makes my blood boil when someone says, "all cops are..." pick your adjective.

As I said to one particularly vocal critic, would you prefer a world with no police officers at all?

There is an extremely thin line between civil behavior and chaos and the police are one of the reasons most people don't cross that line.

For every bad one there are thousands of good ones no one ever talks about. And I say the same thing to people. Would you want a world with no police, not some fantasy utopia, but rather THIS world with no law?

Note: If some jackass decided to oil up and run around naked in front of my daughter touching himself....the very least of his worries would be getting zapped.

You don't know where anyone gets their opinions until you ASK them. So until you've asked someone how they came to their opinion and the source of its (ir)rationale, STFU about about what you think I've experienced.




Yeah, my ex-boyfriend is an ex-law enforcement officer. Do you want to know what they did to him? You have no idea what they put us through. All of them. None of them would take up for him.

Who cares if you're insulted? You're not the one that got beat, humiliated and taunted for two hours at the gas station.

boy's gonna be a star

and they say 'where are the young Jackasses gonna come from?'

Depends on how "blessed" he is down there.

:D

I was teaching H.S. and one of the students (male) put a plastic pumpkin on his head and streaked the length of the school.... almost.

He went by me... I did nothing... harmless as far as I'm concerned, and I didn't know where to grab, anyhow.

Anyway, the kid was nearly clear when he ran into the wrestling coach!

Caught him and frog-marched his ass to the front office.

I was on the kid's side, but admin - as usual - had NO sense of humor.

I was an undergraduate at the time.

I got meat in the freezer older than you!!

:nuke:

Just one ex-Marine having lunch in the book suppository building, minding his own business.

:argh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman


I'm guessing Charles Whitman was probably a republican.

:)

Just like Lee Harvey Oswald.

I grew up a couple of miles from an abandoned rifle range that used to be part of Camp Elliot in San Diego. That's where Oswald took his basic rifle training. Kids used to go to a mound that used to be the backdrop. We'd collect bullets and cartridge cases.

That's all been bulldozed and redeveloped except for a historic sentry pillbox.

Book suppositories sound painful.

Just an attempt at lame humor, and doubting that LHW was anywhere near his rifle that day.

Actually, I had more trouble with my use of "ex-Marine". Supposedly, once a Marine, always a Marine. But he was no longer active duty, and probably not active reserves, so I don't know the correct words. When he looks at the camera and says "I didnt' shoot anybody, I'm just a patsy", I believe him.

They were going to throw the book at him, or place it elsewhere. :rofl:

Good to see there is someone else here who feels this was an overreaction. We had a streaker in high school, and he ran around until the VP and the janitor tackled him and took him to the office. I think he got a three day vacation, but I don't think the police were even called.

Anyway I have read nothing that leads me to believe there was a valid belief this kid was a threat. I think it is both cruel and unusual to use massive electric shocks to stop what was obviously a PRANK.

What's next? Using deadly force because of a food 'fight'?

:silly:

thank god they had the technology to deal with this previously impossible situation
:sarcasm:

True, billy clubs would have worked fine. They would have also probably sent the guy to the hospital with a concussion and/or broken bones, instead of just sore muscles.

It is easier to accidentally kill someone with a billy club than with a stun gun. Both are "less lethal," not nonlethal.

I don't agree with the overuse of stun guns or billy clubs that we sometimes see, but in this case, I think the use of the stun gun was justified.

But "bad" minds think alike.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=85492&mesg_id=85528

Maniac naked guy running around flailing, screaming and menacing other students sounds like just cause to me. Particularly when continuing on after he's already been tased once. Got what he was asking for.

Yes, he should've have been stunned, no doubt about it.

Now back to Free Republic.

but I do think this use of a stun gun was justified.

This wasn't somebody walking away from a parking ticket, someone arguing with an officer, or somebody wrongly roughed up/tazed in a wrong-address raid. It was somebody who appeared to be a violent sexual predator in the actual act of attacking kids. Now, maybe that was just a charade and a prank, but that's not what it would have looked like. And pepper spray isn't an option indoors, with other kids in the room.

I think the officers did the right thing on this one, no question. If the use of stun guns and tasers were limited to incidents like this, they wouldn't be controversial at all.

I think I'd rather be tazed than tackled. Since he was obviously resisting arrest, the potential of injury to him - let alone the police - would have been much higher had they tried to subdue him physically. A hard takedown can cause injury and 2 cops on top of you aren't good for your health. Maybe he elbows a cop in the face either by accident or intentionally, that turns into an exchange, etc. It could get ugly, and since he was tazed twice he obviously wasn't cooperating, even after weapons had been drawn and used.

In this instance, the use of a Tazer was appropriate.