A response...

Following the link(assuming I can get it to work) is my response to another's blog.  I did leave it in his comments section but as blogs tend to fade off pretty quickly I wanted to make sure those who were interested(because isn't everyone insterested in what I have to say? ) had a chance to read.  Also because honestly if I could cause even one person to think about cops and what they do before offering opinions on them and how they did/did not do their job, then it would be worth it.

I'd also like to say that even though I jump on Styro a bit, I don't think he's a bad guy and should I run across him in a game of Halo 3 I would gladly welcome him onto my team and we could kill some timmies together. 

www.2old2play.com/Blog/NotStyro


Wow. I so do not even know where to begin with your latest Styro. The only reason I'm even going to respond to this is so that people who read your blog will know the correct version of things rather than, what appears to be your obvious misstating of the facts to support your anti-police sentiment. So lets get to it:

" And yes, questionable uses, or abuses, are listed."

Every use of the taser mentioned in the article was within the policy guidelines of the police department. Therefore it is erroneous for you to lable them abuses simply to support your personal opinion.

"Now as some of you may know, I tend to hold very civil rights in very high regard."

You may hold them in high regard but your lack of knowledge about them is appalling. Its unfortunate because you might endanger yourself or someone you care about one day because of this lack of knowledge. I've already covered the complete lack of a right to resist an arrest - even an unlawful one, so I'm not going over that again with you.

"I have long known that one doesn't shoot another in the back or is fleeing/retreating"

Please tell me where you came by this knowledge. The fact is you are totally incorrect with your above statement. I can off the top of my head give you 3 reasons why you could/would shoot someone who is fleeing or retreating.

1) Studies by Dr. Bill Lewinski out of Mankato University in Minnesota(I believe it was Mankato) have shown that often times when a subject has been shot in the back the officer actually made the decision to shoot when the subject was facing the officer. The time delay from the cognizant thought to shoot being made and the physical reaction of pulling the trigger give the subject time to spin around, thus when the trigger is pulled the subject has presented his back to the officer. This same time delay is also what stops the officer from stopping his finger from pulling the trigger. Thus on its face it appears the officer shot a subject in the back intentionally when in reality that is not the case.

2) You are allowed to to shoot a fleeing subject if you have probable cause to believe that subject poses a significant threat of physical injury or death to the officer or others.

3) Retreating subjects: If the subject draws a gun, fires at you, and then retreats backwards to a position of cover - by your reasoning an officer would be unable to return fire because the offender was moving AWAY from them. Ridiculous.

"In a home invasion/burglary situation you will be arrested as well as any suspect (should s/he survive). "

You are again incorrect. If someone invades your home - in most states you are allowed to defend yourself from harm. Please note I did not say you were allowed to use deadly force to protect PROPERTY. In fact you are not. However, you may use deadly force to protect your person. In Des Moines, IA last year an elderly woman fired a shotgun blast through her window that lead to a fire escape at a person who was attempting to break into her apartment. The subject was later found a short distance away dead. The woman was not charged. Rightly so.

"I could go into how dishonorable and cowardly it appears to fire at someone that is retreating or fleeing. I hope those officers were soundly chastised by their commanders & fellow officers."

Again you fail to look at the alternatives and what tool in the police toolbox will safely allow the officers to take a subject into custody with the least amount of damage done to the subject AND the officer. I find it cowardly and dishonorable to lob insults at a group of people who day in and day out put themselves in harms way to protect those who can't/won't protect themselves, while you sit and do nothing to further educate yourself on the realities of what they go through daily.

"The other controversial issue was shocking the pregnant woman...So he reached in to the car to pull her out and then shocked her when she started to defend herself."

Why do you misrepresent what actually happened in this case? Oh, I know why - so that you can present your side of things in a manner skewed towards supporting your misdirected dislike of the field of policing.

Christ, even the article you linked to clearly states that the subject only let the officer know she was pregnant **AFTER** she was tased. Why would you lead your readers to conclude that the officer intentionally tased a pregnant woman? Why wouldn't you tell your readers what really happened?

What really happened is this:
"Officer initiated traffic stop when susp failed to stop for stop sign.Susp refused to stop vehicle. Officer was finally able to make contact with susp & she began yelling & swearing at officer. Refused to produce D.L. & related paperwork. Susp refused to comply with officer's orders. Susp continued to refuse swearing & yelling. Susp then placed under arrest; refused to exit vehicle, offcr physically removed susp from behind the wheel. Susp began to resist officer, hitting him, pulling away & screaming. Officer deployed taser, def was warned at least twice that she would be tasered. After she was tasered she adv officer she was pregnant. Susp was medically cleared at BGMC."

Quite a bit different than your version Styro. I would plead with you to open your mind to your bias's and please try to educate yourself with the knowledge and resources that are out there.

@Dastard: I'm unaware of states that allow you to shoot someone fleeing from your property, having commited a property crime against you. Generally speaking, as I mentioned above you are not allowed to protect your property with leathal force. Nor are police officers, again generally speaking, allowed to shoot, with a firearm, a fleeing felon. For a more complete view of the "fleeing felon' rule google: Tennessee v. Garner.