Originally Posted by yoko
But like I said earlier the second he gave bad info he gave up the right to have some handle him nonviolently. She couldn't find legit info on it. She didn't know if he had warrant or a history of violence.
And if he really did have a heart condition he shouldn't have 1. Dared her to tase him and 2. walked away after being told by an office to stay there.
If this guy was just a jerk and ignored her I'd say no using a taser was out of line. But on a guy who is obviously being a jerk, ignoring an officer *I don't care if she was JUST at park ranger*, hiding his identity, giving false information then yes when he tried to leave after being told to stay I think he took being tased into his own hands. If anything had happened, which it didn't other than some jerk got tased, I feel it is his own fault for ignoring a simple command that my dog understands.
See, this is where you and I differ in our opinions. I don't agree that giving false information equals giving up the right to be treated humanely. I think the excessive use of force, painful punishment or detainment is only warranted when someone is threatening violence or is a danger to others. He clearly wasn't. He was walking away....with his back turned when she went after him with the stun gun. The use of this potentially dangerous, electric shocking device, which can cause heart fibrillation is not commensurate to the "crime."
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams 1776
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."