Quit coming over to Detroit and killing our children

[lilpup]

In any event, his running away from them did not put them in jeopardy and gave them no reason for pursuing him. You can't pursue someone just because it's possible they might have a warrant or might have committed some unknown crime at some unknown point in time in some unknown place.

You can if they flee instead of just walking away. Such pursuit has been upheld in court.

[Fnemecek]

First things first: can each of us at least spell the weapon involved in this story correctly?

It's Taser; not Tazer. To help everyone remember, the name is actually an acronym for this weapon's original incarnation, which was called Thomas A. Smith's Electric Rifle.

As for the incident that started this discussion, I think the news reports raise more questions than they do answer them. I believe it's premature for anyone to make a detailed comments about this matter.

[Russix]

"Hello Officer, How may i help you?"
"Do you know why I pulled you over?"
"No, sir"
"Your license plate has expired"
"Well thank you sir, I was not aware of that"
"I'm going to give you a warning ticket, you have 30 days to get the problem corrected, show proof of this at the Warren police station or else the ticket becomes a fine"
"Well Thank you sir, I'll be sure to take care of that"
"Okay drive safe"

instead your dead dude, fucking dead and they weren't even trying to kill you.

The reality is you probably had a huge stash of drugs that you had to ditch real quick before making smiley faces at the PoPos.

[1KielsonDrive]

Ignorance and hate!

[2blocksaway]

"The Warren police should not be wondering why he ran, they should be wondering why they pursued."

When was the last time someone ran from the cops because they were doing something good?

"The juvenile passenger of a vehicle, who has committed no known offense,"

Isn't running from the cops a an offence?

I am also not buying that this kid as a child. At 16 he was a young man. BIG difference.

Take your bleeding heart somewhere else.

Yes, a lot of cops are jerks but that doesn't mean you should run from them and expect not to be pursued.

You run and a lot of your rights get left behind.

[EastsideAl]

Isn't running from the cops a an offence?

No, unless one is being detained for a crime. He wasn't.

[detmich]

No, unless one is being detained for a crime. He wasn't.

Eastside Al, next time that you are in a car that gets pulled over would you please hop out and run away? Thanks, then report back to us on what the police do to you. In the name of science, man, you owe it to humanity.

[lilpup]

No, unless one is being detained for a crime. He wasn't.

But he was. When a vehicle is pulled over for a traffic stop everyone in the car is detained. The vehicle was pulled over for an infraction and the person fled before being released from detention by the officers. The flight is sufficient basis for pursuit. Don't confuse being detained with being arrested.

[Locke09]

But he was. When a vehicle is pulled over for a traffic stop everyone in the car is detained. The vehicle was pulled over for an infraction and the person fled before being released from detention by the officers. The flight is sufficient basis for pursuit. Don't confuse being detained with being arrested.

I'm not so sure that's accurate. The Supreme Court ruled last year that a passenger in a vehicle that has been pulled over might "assume" that they have been "seized" along with the vehicle. Note they didn't say this was so, just that the person might reasonably assume it. But they also qualified the opinion by stating that the assumption relates to the preservation of the person's 4th Amendement rights against unreasonable search and seizure. In effect, if you pull over the vehicle and I am a passenger, I have the right to accuse you of violating my 4th Amendment rights unless you have legitimate reason to detain me.

Not sure how this jibes with Michigan Law yet.

As I said, this could get interesting.

BTW everyone, until disproved, which I believe it would have been by now if it were not true, this 16-year old was special ed with a mind that was closer to 11. He was therefore a child. Certainly the police did not know this, but we do and we should remember it when we keep trying to paint the child as a stupid thug or as someone who should have calmly and intelligently discussed the situation with the officers.

[EastsideAl]

Eastside Al, next time that you are in a car that gets pulled over would you please hop out and run away? Thanks, then report back to us on what the police do to you. In the name of science, man, you owe it to humanity.

I wasn't talking about what the police may or may not do in such a situation, I was talking about what they have a legal right to do. In my experience a lot of police officers really know very little about the law.

When a vehicle is pulled over for a traffic stop everyone in the car is detained. The vehicle was pulled over for an infraction and the person fled before being released from detention by the officers. The flight is sufficient basis for pursuit.

Weeeellll, perhaps, as Locke points out above. But is it sufficient grounds for pursuing someone who they have no reason to suspect of a crime across jurisdictional lines and, say, electrocuting them to death?

[GOAT]

Yeah dammit! If people are going to kill kids it will be Detroiters who kill their own kids not some suburbanite asshole.

[detmich]

Yeah dammit! If people are going to kill kids it will be Detroiters who kill their own kids not some suburbanite asshole.

I remember back in the good old days. When it was safe for kids from Detroit to venture into the suburbs and commit crimes without having to fear for their lives. Now these poor kids can't even drive stolen cars or shoot police officers without fearing for their lives. It makes me sick.

I drove through Royal Oak yesterday and it made me sad to see all those folks parking their cars with valuables in them. People walking the street without worrying about who was behind them, or around the corner. It just doesn't seem right, why do these people chose to live this way?

[irish_mafia]

Here is a really good opportunity for a learning moment. If a cop tells you to stop, obey him/ her or you are likely to regret the consequences.

As long as this rule is followed, everyone will be fine.

Have a good day.

[funkybass]

In Canada, we have two rules: Don't fight with cops, and don't run from cops

[detrola]

The fact that so many posts on this thread lay the blame for this young man's death squarely on the shoulders of the police is more proof positive of my belief that the number one issue facing detroit is a systemic culture of denial. As has been pointed out, the young man was involved in a minor routine traffic stop. He was not committing a crime. Yet he ended up dead at the hands of police.

The chain of events that ended in this young man's accidental death began when he made a choice to run from the police. We need to stop ignoring the role he played. We also need to acknowledge that the police attempted to use non lethal force. Most people do not die as a result of a taser hit. These are facts. To blame the police is to deny the facts. The young man did not die because of the police. The police did not pursue with the intent of killing him. If you choose to believe the police had malicious intent you are no better than those who believe this young man was "guilty of something". He made a choice that started a chain reaction that resulted in his death.

Some have suggested that the police had no cause to pursue. That may be true. But I do not want to live in a society where the police do not pursue those who would run from them. The common perception in most of the world is if someone runs from the police they must have a reason. History would show that guilt is the primary reason someone flees the police. Fear and mental illness are also reasons but not nearly as common. When asked about the O.J. Simpson bronco chase, Mr. T responded "an innocent man don't run." I think we can all learn from T's wisdom.

The biggest problem facing detroit is the systemic culture of denial. You continue to blame John Engler and ignore the role Coleman Young and detroit voters played in his election. You blame KK and Monica Conyers and deny responsibility for their being elected to office. You point to the unfair media coverage of detroit and ignore Congresswoman Kilpatrick's all too public street slang filled rant in support of her son. A young man runs from police and dies from a taser hit and you blame the police and ignore the role the fleeing man played in his own demise. Stop the denial.

Detroiters you have only yourselves to blame.

[EastsideAl]

The fleeing "man" was a 16 year old kid [[who was apparently developmentally disabled). Tasers kill, as seen in several hundred incidents where over-dependence on these "non-lethal" torture devices have cost people their lives.

[Locke09]

Most people are not at all trying to place the blame solely on the police. Most people defending the "young man" are doing so because of the previous posts that refer to the "young man" as a "thug." Of course, it's hard to defend one person without calling into question the actions of another. It's a two-way street. The actions of the police are called into question, not to claim they were intentionally trying to kill this teenager, but to counter the claims that the "thug" only got what he deserved for running.

Most reasonable people would be content to wait for an investigation to tell us what happened and how it could have been handled better, were it not for posters saying the equivalence of: "He ran. He's dead. Oh well!"

Fear, mental illness and developmental disabilities are all extenuating circumstances and many posts are just an appeal to others here to respect that and respect the loss of someone's child.

And, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, some posters continue to imply the young man was a criminal.

[Bobl]

The young man apparently ran from the police. I was taught by caring and firm parents that one does not run from the police.
This tragedy would be less likely to happen again if more parents would give their children positive direction.
Let the investigation reach a conclusion and investigate the dangers of tasers. Make adjustments if necessary. In the meantime, do not run from the police!

[Fnemecek]

Tasers kill, as seen in several hundred incidents where over-dependence on these "non-lethal" torture devices have cost people their lives.

First, the preferred term for Tasers is to call them "less-lethal". There is a chance to kill someone with any weapon.

As for the safety of them, Wake Forest University conducted a study of the Taser and its impacts. They found that in 99.7% of all cases, the person a Taser is used on suffers only minor injuries [[cuts or scraps when they collapse to the ground, etc.) or no injury at all.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84955.php

Bottom line: Tasers are generally much safer for the person being arrested than any other use of force option.

[MrJones]

Bottom line: Tasers are generally much safer for the person being arrested than any other use of force option.

Hey, what are the stats on people losing their lives by police dogs? Maybe the best non-lethal option is to have K9 units pursue and subdue flee-ers...

Seriously though, its unfortunate that this young man lost his life, over nothing, apparently. I suppose the investigation will determine whether the officer applied significantly more "juice" than was necessary to merely subdue the suspect. Until then, I give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and the family of the young man my sympathy.

[Ocean2026]

Nah Mr.Jones - good attempt but using dogs to chase criminals wouldn't work. The criminals would then -after breaking into houses and stealing money and jewels, additionally pilfer large amounts of the victim's dog food and just feed it to and distract the pursuing canines.

Which is cheaper, easier and more likely to work?

Buying off a dog arrest with a handful of IAMs ... or having to use real cash to bribe the police?

[1KielsonDrive]

Some friends and I, when we were teenagers, once ran away from the Detroit cops. We had pulled a little 'heist'. Nothing seriously bad but the cops didn't know that at the time. Anyway, they shot at us, not knowing we were teens and suspecting we'd done something much more serious. When they hauled us in, one of the cops said, "I don't know how in the hell I missed you". Well after pissing our pants because we were targets we then s*+t our pants. The main point here is we were young and goofy. Maybe stupid would be a more accurate description. We survived and live to laugh at the retelling of the story. Other kids, then and now, have had similar experiences. It's not up to anyone to shoot at anyone else indiscriminately. If an officer or a citizen seriously suspects their life is in danger, I might understand shooting. A person shouldn't be shot under any circumstances except when threatening another life. This would be even more applicable to young persons. Everyone is piping in and most don't have a clue what happened. They're making assumptions and statements based upon ignorance and hate.

[detmich]

Some friends and I, when we were teenagers, once ran away from the Detroit cops. We had pulled a little 'heist'. Nothing seriously bad but the cops didn't know that at the time. Anyway, they shot at us, not knowing we were teens and suspecting we'd done something much more serious. When they hauled us in, one of the cops said, "I don't know how in the hell I missed you". Well after pissing our pants because we were targets we then s*+t our pants. The main point here is we were young and goofy. Maybe stupid would be a more accurate description. We survived and live to laugh at the retelling of the story. Other kids, then and now, have had similar experiences. It's not up to anyone to shoot at anyone else indiscriminately. If an officer or a citizen seriously suspects their life is in danger, I might understand shooting. A person shouldn't be shot under any circumstances except when threatening another life. This would be even more applicable to young persons. Everyone is piping in and most don't have a clue what happened. They're making assumptions and statements based upon ignorance and hate.

The police did not shoot at anyone in this incident, so what the heck are you talking about? Have you guys been tripping over in the Garwood thread again?

[Buy American]

Some friends and I, when we were teenagers, once ran away from the Detroit cops. We had pulled a little 'heist'. Nothing seriously bad but the cops didn't know that at the time. Anyway, they shot at us, not knowing we were teens and suspecting we'd done something much more serious. When they hauled us in, one of the cops said, "I don't know how in the hell I missed you". Well after pissing our pants because we were targets we then s*+t our pants. The main point here is we were young and goofy. Maybe stupid would be a more accurate description. We survived and live to laugh at the retelling of the story. Other kids, then and now, have had similar experiences. It's not up to anyone to shoot at anyone else indiscriminately. If an officer or a citizen seriously suspects their life is in danger, I might understand shooting. A person shouldn't be shot under any circumstances except when threatening another life. This would be even more applicable to young persons. Everyone is piping in and most don't have a clue what happened. They're making assumptions and statements based upon ignorance and hate.

Although your post has nothing to do with being tasered, I can tell you that many times the police have shot at or actually killed suspects when they have been in jeopardy and the shooting was justified; yet they STILL get into trouble with ambulance chasing attorneys who solicit a grieving family to sue the departments or the officers. It is always the same old story...."my child or my brother or my husband was not doing a thing wrong"..."he was a pilar of society"...."he went to church every Wednesday and Sunday"....."he never got into trouble"....."he is mentally slow"....."he was scared"....."he was an excellent student when he went to school". When the police are on the streets protecting you and me, they don't have the luxury to stop and evaluate every situation that some lawyer may throw at them after the fact. They can't tell if someone is mentally handicapped or only 14 years old and just plain stupid. All they know is that this person has the potential to pull a gun and shoot them, so the police must make split second decisions that most of the time is the correct one.
If people are taught from a young age to just do the right thing, respect each other, don't get involved in crime, and to respect the police, there would be no problems. There is no resonable reason for anyone to run from police unless they are/were involved in something criminal, plain and simple.

[firstandten]

First, the preferred term for Tasers is to call them "less-lethal". There is a chance to kill someone with any weapon.

As for the safety of them, Wake Forest University conducted a study of the Taser and its impacts. They found that in 99.7% of all cases, the person a Taser is used on suffers only minor injuries [[cuts or scraps when they collapse to the ground, etc.) or no injury at all.

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84955.php

Bottom line: Tasers are generally much safer for the person being arrested than any other use of force option.

couple of questions... What are some of other forms of non-lethal force that are being used and does rubber bullets work ?