Student Tasered after questioning Kerry at forum

[DeadPoolX 9]

I know if my 6 year old girl was physically attacked by an 11 year old, I would snap his arm and every other large bone of his in half.

Which would net you a jail term for GBH.

As I said - is it really that implausible that an adult can't find other ways to restrain a child rather than resort to weapons or turning into a territorial mountain gorilla?

I think it would matter when someone caught this act taking place. For instance, if an individual saw an older male physically assaulting his young daughter, I seriously doubt very many (if any) juries would convict him for reacting in a harsh and violent manner.

However, if this same individual heard about the event at a later date from his daughter, tracked down the male who did it, and then delivered his own "brand of justice," I could definitely see legal problems occuring. The difference being between this example (and the one above) is that this one was premeditated -- where the father hunted down the man who assaulted his daughter -- whereas the former example was a "spur of the moment" thing.

well sure, but changing the perp from an 11 year old boy to an 'older male' changes everything....

If you were to compare a six year-old girl and an 11 year-old boy, the 11 year-old then becomes an "older male" by default due to his age and gender. Is it the same as a 33 year-old doing the damage? Probably not, but then again, the 11 year-old is more aware of "right and wrong" than the six year-old. Therefore, while he could not legally be held accountable as an adult by any state in the U.S., he would still be "old enough" to know he was taking advantage of and abusing a younger individual.

I'm not suggesting that the father in this scenario cripple the 11 year-old or do any other sort of long-lasting harm. I'm merely stating that most juries would probably end up sympathizing with the father and his assaulted daughter. After all, there have been recorded cases of children as young as 11 (sometimes even younger) who have beaten and raped others. Why they would do this at such a young age is beyond me, but the fact remains they have and because of this, it is not out of the realm of possibility that an 11 year-old could do it and be convicted of a similar crime.

Edited September 19, 2007 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I know if my 6 year old girl was physically attacked by an 11 year old, I would snap his arm and every other large bone of his in half.

Which would net you a jail term for GBH.

As I said - is it really that implausible that an adult can't find other ways to restrain a child rather than resort to weapons or turning into a territorial mountain gorilla?

I think it would matter when someone caught this act taking place. For instance, if an individual saw an older male physically assaulting his young daughter, I seriously doubt very many (if any) juries would convict him for reacting in a harsh and violent manner.

However, if this same individual heard about the event at a later date from his daughter, tracked down the male who did it, and then delivered his own "brand of justice," I could definitely see legal problems occuring. The difference being between this example (and the one above) is that this one was premeditated -- where the father hunted down the man who assaulted his daughter -- whereas the former example was a "spur of the moment" thing.

well sure, but changing the perp from an 11 year old boy to an 'older male' changes everything....

If you were to compare a six year-old girl and an 11 year-old boy, the 11 year-old then becomes an "older male" by default due to his age and gender. Is it the same as a 33 year-old doing the damage? Probably not, but then again, the 11 year-old is more aware of "right and wrong" than the six year-old. Therefore, while he could not legally be held accountable as an adult by any state in the U.S., he would still be "old enough" to know he was taking advantage of and abusing a younger individual.

I'm not suggesting that the father in this scenario cripple the 11 year-old or do any other sort of long-lasting harm. I'm merely stating that most juries would probably end up sympathizing with the father and his assaulted daughter. After all, there have been recorded cases of children as young as 11 (sometimes even younger) who have beaten and raped others. Why they would do this at such a young age is beyond me, but the fact remains they have and because of this, it is not out of the realm of possibility that an 11 year-old could do it and be convicted of a similar crime.

Does it justify an adult tasering the child though? As I see it the issue is not that the adult intervened to stop an older boy beating on a younger girl, but that he approached a situation involving children as though he were dealing with adults. What constitutes too much force in your opinion - pepper spray in the face, a baton across the ribs or a bullet in the leg?

Is there really any doubt than an adult male could overpower an 11-year old without any weapons at all?

[maria_n_john 0]

Hey Mr. Fancypants:

Here's the continuation to the story you posted some time ago. I thought you might be interested in the follow up. Unfortunately we could not taser the dude (excuse me, bro) again (but we're working on it).

http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/2007...50322/1002/NEWS

Seems like the guy had planned the whole thing.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

Hey Mr. Fancypants:

Here's the continuation to the story you posted some time ago. I thought you might be interested in the follow up. Unfortunately we could not taser the dude (excuse me, bro) again (but we're working on it).

http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/2007...50322/1002/NEWS

Seems like the guy had planned the whole thing.

seems like he needs to be tasered a few more times, that chop###

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By way of a contrast - there's a trial going on in the UK about the innocent man who got shot 7 times in the head in the London Underground in 2005. Still trying to figure out if that was i) excessive and ii) wrong. But there you go...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hey Mr. Fancypants:

Here's the continuation to the story you posted some time ago. I thought you might be interested in the follow up. Unfortunately we could not taser the dude (excuse me, bro) again (but we're working on it).

http://www.gainesvillesun.com/article/2007...50322/1002/NEWS

Seems like the guy had planned the whole thing.

seems like he needs to be tasered a few more times, that chop###

Whether he planned it doesn't really matter much at the end of the day. He's an idiot sure, but it still seems OTT to me.

Moreover, people seem to love it when Sacha Baron Cohen does pretty much the same thing.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

By way of a contrast - there's a trial going on in the UK about the innocent man who got shot 7 times in the head in the London Underground in 2005. Still trying to figure out if that was i) excessive and ii) wrong. But there you go...

there is just a slight difference between zapping someone with a taser and shooting them with a firearm

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By way of a contrast - there's a trial going on in the UK about the innocent man who got shot 7 times in the head in the London Underground in 2005. Still trying to figure out if that was i) excessive and ii) wrong. But there you go...

there is just a slight difference between zapping someone with a taser and shooting them with a firearm

Sure. But the principle is still the same - trigger-happy over-zealous use of force where it wasn't really necessary.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

By way of a contrast - there's a trial going on in the UK about the innocent man who got shot 7 times in the head in the London Underground in 2005. Still trying to figure out if that was i) excessive and ii) wrong. But there you go...

there is just a slight difference between zapping someone with a taser and shooting them with a firearm

Sure. But the principle is still the same - trigger-happy over-zealous use of force where it wasn't really necessary.

not hardly. one is non-lethal force, the other is lethal force. apples and oranges, bud

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

By way of a contrast - there's a trial going on in the UK about the innocent man who got shot 7 times in the head in the London Underground in 2005. Still trying to figure out if that was i) excessive and ii) wrong. But there you go...

there is just a slight difference between zapping someone with a taser and shooting them with a firearm

Sure. But the principle is still the same - trigger-happy over-zealous use of force where it wasn't really necessary.

not hardly. one is non-lethal force, the other is lethal force. apples and oranges, bud

As I said the principle is still the same - resorting to excessive force where it isn't really necessary, even if the level of violence in one example is a "Step up".

[Reynaldo 0]

Exactly, Charles, shoot first and ask later doesn't work as well as zap first and ask later...

The guy is a big douche anyways... He ruined my reading of harry potter...

EDIT:

The guy in the UK was just going to work and minding his own business.

The douche in Florida was heckling Kerry and annoying the ###### out of the people around him.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Reynaldo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Exactly, Charles, shoot first and ask later doesn't work as well as zap first and ask later...

The guy is a big douche anyways... He ruined my reading of harry potter...

EDIT:

The guy in the UK was just going to work and minding his own business.

The douche in Florida was heckling Kerry and annoying the ###### out of the people around him.

I don't think that in either example that any degree of "excessive force" was justified.

[Reynaldo 0]

I don't think that in either example that any degree of "excessive force" was justified.

I don't think they used "excessive force" with that a-hole in Florida.

He resisted to prison forcefully. They tased him. The end. He is ok and still the same douche.

The british case is unexcusable, because they killed a guy before being sure he was who they were looking for.

You could kinda understand where they were coming from, but they are murderers and should be treated as such.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think that in either example that any degree of "excessive force" was justified.

I don't think they used "excessive force" with that a-hole in Florida.

He resisted to prison forcefully. They tased him. The end. He is ok and still the same douche.

The british case is unexcusable, because they killed a guy before being sure he was who they were looking for.

You could kinda understand where they were coming from, but they are murderers and should be treated as such.

Whether the guy deserved it or not, in your opinion, doesn't justify the use of force. It looks OTT to me - but that's just my opinion. I don't dispute that the guy was loud and obnoxious. That's one thing. Being a danger to yourself and others is quite another. As far as that goes - these days you need only sneeze on an officer's sleeve, or use a colorful word and its classed as resisting - netting you pretty much the same charge as if you resisted with real violence.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

Exactly, Charles, shoot first and ask later doesn't work as well as zap first and ask later...

The guy is a big douche anyways... He ruined my reading of harry potter...

EDIT:

The guy in the UK was just going to work and minding his own business.

The douche in Florida was heckling Kerry and annoying the ###### out of the people around him.

glad to see you back on vj rey, missed seeing you.

(i also wondered if alex's cooking did you in )