Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2165032)

I do think that facts and actions can be looked at in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2165032)

Of course, when I do something like counsel a black client on taking a plea vs. trial, I'm not an idiot. Race is going to be a factor whether he's innocent or guilty.

The challenge attorneys have to overcome is to not make that recommendation because of our own prejudices, but to be realistic about the sort of jury you're going to pick, i.e., likely to be all white folks with driver's licenses who were unresourceful enough not to get out of jury duty.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2164902)

You know nothing about me. In fact, I do a rather large amount of pro bono representing victims of abuse in juvenile deprived court after being taken away from abusive parents by child welfare services, usually trying to terminate the parents' rights. It's a very serious matter. I suppose you've never told or laughed at an off-color joke in your life?

I wasn't trying to be tasteful, neither were DrPhil or cheerleader, who think it's okay to throw around words like racist without giving it a second thought.

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 2165017)

That is not the crux of racism or the Ku Klux Klan.

Originally Posted by als463 (Post 2165059)

This is on par with saying, "I have friends who are black so, it's okay for me to make racist jokes." As far as it being an "off color" joke, I don't see how making a "joke" about children being sexually abused is supposed to be funny and no big deal. You tried to derail this thread by making a joke at the expense of abused kids. Way to go, pro bono attorney!
.

Originally Posted by als463 (Post 2165059)

This is on par with saying, "I have friends who are black so, it's okay for me to make racist jokes." As far as it being an "off color" joke, I don't see how making a "joke" about children being sexually abused is supposed to be funny and no big deal. You tried to derail this thread by making a joke at the expense of abused kids. Way to go, pro bono attorney!

The joke about Joe Paterno looking the other way was also lacking taste. What is sad is that I generally agree with some of your views but, now I question your character.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2165171)

Glad to see you're taking a stand by raging against jokes on the interwebs.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2165171)

What do you do for abused children? Seriously.. get a sense of humor. I don't care about taste, I do real things for real people. Thousands of dollars of billable hours each month go to abused children. Glad to see you're taking a stand by raging against jokes on the interwebs.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2165171)

What do you do for abused children? Seriously.. get a sense of humor. I don't care about taste, I do real things for real people. Thousands of dollars of billable hours each month go to abused children. Glad to see you're taking a stand by raging against jokes on the interwebs.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2165171)

What do you do for abused children? Seriously.. get a sense of humor. I don't care about taste, I do real things for real people. Thousands of dollars of billable hours each month go to abused children. Glad to see you're taking a stand by raging against jokes on the interwebs.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2165341)

Wait, didn't you tell als463 she shouldn't make assumptions about you, saying "You know nothing about me"? If you don't want people to make assumptions about what you do or don't do, you might return the favor to them.

And don't act like you didn't know your joke was tasteless, or at least might be perceived that way. Why else would you have asked "too soon?"

Originally Posted by als463 (Post 2165397)

Thanks for the lessons on how I should be a better person, Kevin.

Originally Posted by IrishLake (Post 2165352)

OK, so I asked my brother what his departments protocol is for something like this, and here is what he said:

"My department's policy states prior to deploying an ECD (Electronic control device aka Taser) the target must be showing "active aggression." This basically means that if someone runs from me or refuses to comply by using deadweight, standing still and tensing up, etc. I should not use the ecd. If they assault, attack, or resist by force (pulling away, grapple with me, etc.) then I would be justified. There is no age limit young or old. I think we're all competent enough not to taze a small child or an elderly person, though. That said, I would not taze someone who was clearly unarmed that was not a threat to me. It's easy to judge someones actions after the fact when that officer had a split second to make a decision during an adrenaline fogged high-stress situation. In the case you asked about, the girl denied physically interfering with her mothers arrest, and claimed she was just crying and telling the officer to not arrest her mother. Obviously if that were the case the use of force would not be justified. Putting myself in that situation and taking into consideration the girl looked to be no more than 90 lbs., I would probably only utilize the ecd if she was physically attacking me or physically attempting to interfere with the arrest. Unfortunately the perception and possible media attention in a situation like this would cause a lot of guys to second guess themselves before using the appropriate amount of force.

I would try to physically control both of them while obviously giving verbal commands, but that's much easier said than done. If the mother was resisting and the daughter was helping her I'd say the ecd would be more than justified for the safety of the officer and in the interest of effecting the arrest."