August 18, 2004

Cops Use Taser on Charley victim A guy, in his minivan, with his three kids, just wanted to go back to his house. Florida police officers decided to swat the fly with a Buick and drag him from his van and "subdue" him with their Taser, while the crowd surrounding objects vociferously. Charming video for you all to watch. [link via Sensible Erection.]
posted by es el Queso 20 years ago
  • The wide frame and shaky camera work makes it very, very hard to see exactly what is going on. The news story is extremely lacking in detail.
  • Why it must be a lie!
  • i feel for the guy and i wish the cops hadn't resorted to that level of force but come on: the guy was trying to force his way through a police barracade. he got zapped "after he tried to force his way through the roadblock and assaulted the deputy who tried to stop him." what'd he think was going to happen, and, realistically, what should the cops have done?
  • I think the least they could have done was bump the terror alert up a color.
  • Is this "Taser" something I would need frustration to know about?
  • A taser is a device that send a large jolt of electricity intended to temporarily disrupt the central nervous system and it's control over the voluntary muscle system.
  • I think the least they could have done was bump the terror alert up a color priceless
  • D'oh. Too many conversations going on at once. That's "and its control".
  • The whole video has a definite suggestion of false hysteria to it. The heckler from the 'crowd' is going nuts, but you don't see any crowd, no one pressing forward, nor hear much noise other than the heckler. The police in the video all seem rather calm, with none of the obvious sudden sharp movements that usually accompany aggressive take-downs. This is much more a comment on the state of US media than any sort of final determination, but my initial reaction was that it was a set up by an aggressive reporter and camera man.
  • Hey, I survived Hurricane Charley and no one gave me the taser. I feel so unloved. :(
  • shoots Sullivan with a taser There. Now do you feel better? Sullivan? Sullivan? Oh, damn. Which one of you wiseguys switched my taser with my elephant tranquilizers?
  • Was I the only one who read this as meaning "Cops use Taser on cokehead"?
  • yes.
  • I did too, flashboy. Although, only after I thought of everyone's favourite helpful cat.
  • *meekly raises hand* flashboy: uh...no.
  • I read it as tasering a Vietnamese man.
  • The police in the video all seem rather calm, with none of the obvious sudden sharp movements that usually accompany aggressive take-downs. that's because none occurred. instead, an officer stood a safe distance away and fired electrodes into the "perps" body and electricity sufficient to knock him to the ground was applied.
  • I'm with dirigible. charlie down! charlie down!
  • Charlie don't surf...
  • As quonsor said, once a taser shock is applied, there's not a whole lot of struggling with the "perp" required. I've never understood the concept of keeping people away from their property because it might be dangerous for them to be there. If people are willing to accept the danger/risk to return to their homes, they should be allowed to do so. If there's ever a natural disaster in North Austin that requires evacuation, you'll probably see me on the news being tasered for either being unwilling to leave in the first place or for jumping a barricade and going to my house when I want to afterward.
  • orb, I think the problem (maybe) is that those people (sometimes) aren't willing to accept the danger/risk -- i.e. when they go back to their house, and it collapses on them, they (or the family of the deceased) sues the city and the police force for failing to take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of citizens. I'm not saying you shouldn't allowed to be as stupid/foolhardy as you want to be, though. Just that I can understand why a city might ask the police to keep people away from potentially unstable areas, even if those people have private property located there.
  • I'm sure if legal minds worked on it, they could come up with some sort of waiver people could sign saying "We know it's dangerous and there's the potential we could be killed. The cops warned us, but we don't care. We swear not to sue if we get screwed up in any way." :D I'd sign a waver to return to my house after a disaster, but then like I said, they'd have a hard time getting me out in the first place.
  • Its not being sued that they're worried about - its having to rescue a bunch of people from random locations all over town, I expect.