12-year-old tased by police officer

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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:

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[als463]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by als463

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!
.

CTFU this is some funny ass shit LOL!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by als463

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.

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.

[Iota Man]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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?"

[IrishLake]

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."

[als463]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?"

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by als463

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

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

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."

Thanks for sharing your brother's perspective.