But dude is GC very own Grand Wizard.

Nope. Not even close. Kevin says things that I disagree with (along with things that I agree with) and is clueless about certain topics. That is not the crux of racism or the Ku Klux Klan.

As entertaining as this all is, I would like to know why Kevin seems to be cyber-"mad" at me. LOL. Tell 'em why ya "mad", Kevin. :)

Okay, first, sorry to lump you in with Iota. I'm still butthurt over page 1 of this thread. I took that as kind of an out-of-the-blue accusation that you believed I'm only fine with this because the alleged victim here is black. I still don't see any other reasonable way to interpret what was done there, but I'm over it.

For what it's worth, I've learned a lot over the years from you regarding racial issues. I just tend to (as you may have picked up) disagree with a lot of what you've said... and before you ask for specifics, I can't even think of anything specific at the moment.

Aside from that, I have no problems with you. Hatchet buried.

If you have not already done so, read my explanation in my edited "where's the spoon" post.

Long story short, I'm all for jokes and amusement but I was curious about why you insisted on convincing yourself that I was calling you racist despite the fact that I do not give much credit to individual racism. Also, someone does not have to be racist, classist, heterosexist, ageist, sexist, or (insert other -isms) to consciously and/or subconsciously conform to mainstream images of beauty, youth, innocence, and harmlessness that are attached to demographic characteristics. This has been a component of societies long before the contemporary media existed. We all conform at times and we constantly have to challenge these images and our acceptance of these images. Such is life. The crimes showcased on HLN's evening shows are sometimes considered an illustration of this as is some of the discussion in that GC thread about Casey Anthony.

Thread Cliff Notes for GCers who are trying to keep up and wondering "what in the hell":

Some GCers were posting about whether people believed there are reasons to ever tase children and are there legal and extralegal factors that shape people's opinions. Does the child have to be engaged in certain behaviors? Does the child have to possess a weapon? Does it have to be a certain type of weapon? What happens if the child has a physical, mental, or emotional condition? Does the child have to be a certain age, income level, education level, family type, style of dress, or possess other traits that people can label "harmful" or "future offender" versus "innocent" or "too pretty/adorable/cutesy" to be a threat.

These are among the things that law enforcement officers deal with during training and during actual incidents. These are also the things that the general public deals with and should think about.

I certainly would have taken it differently had you attached some sort of explanation. As it stood at the time.. well, we've been over that.

It seemed the simplest explanation for what I was seeing... the implication seemed to be that the difference in the two pictures was that one 12-year old was black and the other white and that I'd have a big problem if the police officer was tasing the white girl.

Let me make it clear--I'd be happy to see that little blonde hellion tased if she was doing what this officer's report indicated the young lady in the OP was doing, and that if all she got was tased (not charged with a crime), she's had a pretty good day.

That's maybe where we part ways. I do think that facts and actions can be looked at in a vacuum. 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.

Tasing is done both for the subject and the officer's safety. There should have to be some cause, but certainly, the factors above cannot be considered in an instant. It's a judgment call and we have to hope that police forces (yes, this is a laugher and I know it) police themselves internally enough to get rid of consistent bad actors. The recommendation that this incident gets reported to internal affairs will at least allow someone to scrutinize this officer's file. If he has a long history of questionable force, he might merit further scrutiny.

Obviously the incident I posted a link presented a clearly unacceptable tasing incident wherein a bedridden old lady was tased 5 times and had her oxygen hose stepped on which deprived her of oxygen during some sort of an arrest where five officers were present.

I completely understand and agree to some extent. Many attorneys, judges, and others involved in the criminal justice and legal realms say this. That is often considered intentionally surface-level as to only focus on legal factors. However, it is also considered extremely difficult and some would argue impossible considering this:

The legal factors are what they are but most remain correlated with extralegal factors. Attorneys, judges, jurors, etc can attempt to control for extralegal factors (hence some studies consistently finding minimal variation in legal outcomes for the same offense across race and socioeconomic status) but only within reason.

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.

I feel you and it isn't, but I will have to agree to disagree with you here, because I'm just not feeling dude when he tells somebody to "get over" something that still is going on today. You and I just feel differently about his comments.

CTFU this is some funny ass shit LOL!

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.

Be glad for everybody else on here who has an opinion about shit they want to post too.

Kevin, quit with this elitist jargon, boasting about the "favors" that you are doing for those who are suffering. You know good and well that this does not make sense. Defend your "joke" all you want but surely you can see the problems with your rationale. You better care about tact and for conveying respect for the "real people" you do "real things" for. You would most likely not make these jokes in front of those abused children and their caregivers. We can defend our racy humor all we want but there are reasons this humor does not work with every audience and tends to be reserved for particular audiences.

By the way, since your last sentence reminds me of earlier in this thread when you lost your mind and said things like "you're expecting thread on the interwebs to lead to new understandings of commonalities which could lead to greater understanding of...", people can call things out and address misconceptions wherever they deem necessary. Surely you can relate.

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?"

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."

I used to be a child protective services caseworker. I've also worked at a Juvenile detention facility with kids who have been abused and neglected. I have volunteered as a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA--Kappa Alpha Theta's philanthropy) and I currently work as a therapist for many abused and neglected kids. So, I guess you are right. I'm not doing too much for those kids that you like to make jokes about. I guess you can call me a prude. As far as getting a sense of humor---I can laugh at many things but, I have never found child abuse (particularly sexual abuse) to really be all that hilarious. I don't "rage against jokes on the interwebs." Instead, I actually do donate both time and money to kids who have been abused and neglected. So, maybe you should continue to contribute some billable hours because the more billable hours you rack up, the funnier child abuse becomes. Thanks for the lessons on how I should be a better person, Kevin.

As I said before, quoting a recently semi-famous comedian, if you don't like it, do as Paterno did and look the other way.

You what I said and turned "What do you do" into "You do nothing"?

I'm certainly not going to apologize for something I never said.

Thanks for sharing your brother's perspective.