n23x

Christ didn't come to earth to give us the willies! Well, we'll have to keep that in mind when his birthday comes around in the next 8 months or so. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Does this go the other way, such as heating deionized water and then throwing something in it to cause it to boil? (I didn't want to google it). .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

It would also appear that some of the law enforcement types on this thread have been so busy jerking off to Platoon, Paths of Glory and Apocalypse Now that they can't help protect their friends, regardless of right and wrong. Cops protecting cops instead of the general public strike again... Wow, that was easy! Do YOU think the officer in this situation responded correctly? .jim Edited to add: A position in law enforcement doesn't give one the right to abuse their powers. Further, those people shouldn't expect or deserve to be protected when they abuse that power. "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I never said anything about killing that officer, did I? Was the female officer responding "in performance of her duties" if she was not being physically threatened by the woman in this news article? The answer is: no, she was not. Guess what: You can still uphold the laws/duties you swore to protect/perform WITHOUT protecting the fellow LEOs who DON'T. The problem is too many officers these day get in a huff and say, "you don't know what it's like", "you weren't there", "what do you want, more officers to die?", instead of critically looking at the situation and saying "that officer was wrong, and a lot of other officers have performed incorrectly using this tool, we need to make a change". I still say that all officers considering using a taser in a non-lethal, unjustified situation should FACE and FEAR the possible repercussions of a citizen fighting back; including death, or maybe just being permenantly disabled for the rest of their miserable life. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Boy, I never said if it would occur before they fired on me, or maybe after in a park with their kids when they're unarmed, did I? Gasp in shock if you want, but it's just a reversal of roles isn't it? They would deserve nothing less. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

For once I agree with the people who think all american citizens should be armed to the teeth. Shoot me unjustly with a potentially fatal weapon, and I am going to justly shoot you back with a potentially fatal weapon. Maybe some preemtive action is in order here. Maybe before the cops can unjustly draw their potentialy lethal weapons on us, we should show, an indicate our intent to use potentially lethal weapons on them. Who here would feel just in firing on an officer who unjustly fired on you, regardless of the weapon used? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Are you being sarcastic or are you really suggesting "mission accomplished, part deux"? 20 minutes or 20 years wouldn't make a lick of difference. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

And I spelled it correctly in my first post. Boo hoo. Should I travel back through all of Jakee's posts to verify correct spelling and grammar? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

The Majesterium in the Golden Compass, of course! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I just saw the movie. Not too shabby. I think as long as we can all agree that the Magesterium are a bunch of self-loathing dumb cunts, everybody can mind their own business and just get along! Do as I say, and not as I do! .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Watch out, the last time I referenced this there were the classic blubbering-vagina-Bill O'reilly-esque "WAR ON CHRISTIANITY" complaints. And for all you persons that are going to complain about it, read Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. It's the written WORD of Jesus' life outside that recorded in the bible, 100% legit, and might provide some perspective about the actual trials and tribulations someone has to face as they grow up (in a fictional sense). edited: definately no malice towards Micro!

wrong. the middle initials are TF, and that doesn't stand for twin falls. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

He didn't know what color they were, but he was able to actively select and fire upon them as targets? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Unfortunately, a LOT of unemployed or (sometimes in their own opinion) underemployed feel they are entitled to a better job/pay/benefits than what they're worth. Either continually improve yourself, or don't complain when somebody else comes chomping for your job. As for migrant workers in general, go nuts! Each person should be entitled to the greatest or least amount of responsibility they wish in their life. More power to them. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

This is like saying, "All conservatives are full blown closet gay and will try to have bathroom sex while doing the 'fred astaire' in the stall." Don't mistake a small subset's opinions for the whole group. Birds are dumb anyways. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I don't believe that a tazer results in death or serious injury more often then a couple percent (probably far less) of the time. I do, however, think that the small percentage of time that a tazer does result in death or serious injury should deter officers from using a tazer so 'casually'. I understand the call that the officers were responding to. I understand the perceived threat. I also think that there were, as in many tazer cases, alternate solutions that would have ended in a more peaceful manor. Well, you're wrong. The "heat of the moment" arguement is the biggest load of horseshit of all time. If you fuck up, admit it, and don't say, "I didn't fuck up, you don't know what it's like". LEOs are trained to operate in a high stress environment, correct? If you can't make the correct (or even frequently correct) choice in the work environment you chose, or own up to your mistakes, don't work there anymore. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I don't think there is much of a difference between the theoretical replacement of "gun only" in my tazer or gun scenario. Is there a reason why the 2 officers could have "waited it out" as they would have with the gun? You yourself said the "guy isn't going to stand there forever". Could one of the officers covered the suspect with a weapon while the other moved in to physically subdue the suspect? Absolutely 'yes', in my mind. Nobody is saying that officers shouldn't be safe. We are disagreeing with the fact that the tazer was labelled as a safe, non-lethal weapon, and due to the safe portrayal, officers have been more likely to use it in situations where they were not necessary. Now we're seeing that it can in fact be lethal, but still seem to find cases where more and more officers are using in an unnecessary fashion. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Well, I think you're wrong. Being passive doesn't mean being a threat. Being non-compliant doesn't mean being a threat. A tazer shouldn't be used, in my opinion, unless someone is actively moving to harm an officer, i.e, advancing with a weapon, or advancing on a single, smaller, weaker officer. A tazer should NOT be used as a compliance tool because the cops (plural, in this case) are incapable of doing their job, or don't want to get hit. (You signed up for it, expect to take some knocks during your employment). Lets review this case: Say the man doesn't show his hands, the cops don't have a tazer but they have their gun, they draw their gun and order the deaf guy to show his hands, he doesn't comply. What's the next step? Shoot? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

http://www.kwch.com/global/story.asp?s=7446220 This one said he was tazed when he didn't comply (due to deafness). On one hand, I see they say "he wouldn't show his hands": he could have been holding a weapon. On the other hand, I read that as: There were multiple officers there that couldn't, all together, control a man without tazing him. Does that make sense/Different opinions? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I'd think quite the contrary. Your cruiser's camera would have caught the action, and we'd give you a big thanks and a "glad you didn't die". I don't think anybody's disputing the fact that a less lethal weapon can and should be used to defend an officer's life. Particularly if they are in a situation where the odds are against them! I do, however, think we're seeing an influx of situations where the general public views the officer's situation as NOT being to that point, and thus feel it is an example of incorrect force escalation. The general feeling is that the tazer should only be used in the same situation that you would use your firearm. Opinions? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Didn't mean to reply to you, or pin it on you. Sorry! With regard to Richards, you never said that the born comment was exclusive to legally immigrated citizens, just trying to clarify. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I was verifying that you thought children born to illegal immigrants inside the US are not illegal immigrants. I mean, they didn't move from one country to another in their lifetime, right? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

So you approve of citizenship for all born here? Regardless of their parents status? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

I mentioned that in my initial post, and suggested that the cause for the guy's quick motion was when the cop got his arm with the door. I also agreed that the officer then was probably right to taze him. What I didn't agree with was the cop's immediate draw of the tazer. It's like he didn't even give him half a second to respond. Looking at the article, it doesn't look like he had any weapons or drugs on him, so how could the cop have gone so quickly to drawing his weapon? Based off the information I have, it seems to me like he was trigger happy. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

Here's a fun one: license and registration bitch! I don't have audio, so I can't comment on that part, but based off the dialog alone I can't see anything out of ordinary. Granted, I see what could be construed as an aggressive movement towards the officer when he closes the door on the guys arm, but would you (based on what you see in the video) qualify this as appropriate force escalation? Any additional thoughts? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC