PDA

View Full Version : Tasered woman now brain dead



aka:PBS
02-21-2012, 05:39 PM
SunSeeker

View profile

Tasered woman now brain dead
A woman shot with a Taser by a trooper in Florida, falls into a coma, now brain dead. Jane Velez-Mitchell speaks with her parents.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t3#/video/bestoftv/2012/02/21/exp-jvm-taser-coma.hln

Local news story with (disturbing) video of tasing:

A young woman was left with severe brain damage and in a vegetative state after being tasered by a police officer. The officer's dash cam shows 20-year-old Danielle Maudsley handcuffed, as she ran away from the Florida Highway Patrol officer. She was only feet away when she is tasered in the back. The victim collapsed and her head slammed to the ground.

http://www.wcti12.com/news/30482005/detail.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101456865

And of course the usual love fest:


CaliforniaPeggy
1. I hope that officer is charged with murder.

View profile
This is so out of control, the use of these tasers like this.

Horrifying.

Hmmmmmmmm I read that she is brain dead....since when is that murder?

Madisonian
02-21-2012, 05:44 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101456865

And of course the usual love fest:



Hmmmmmmmm I read that she is brain dead....since when is that murder?

If it were, Skinner would be charged with genocide.

michaelsean
02-21-2012, 05:57 PM
There are a few over there looking at some granite in their future. I guess nobody told them. Cops are bad. Drug addled people with two hit and runs trying to escape are victims.

FlaGator
02-21-2012, 05:58 PM
Things happen when you run from the cops. I am sad for the woman and her family but this stands as an object lesson in why one shouldn't run from the police.

Apache
02-21-2012, 06:06 PM
Ah DU thy name is DUmbasslyingpieceofshit...

One has to wonder why this line was omitted from the OP....
Investigators determined the trooper's use of force was justified.


POLICE BRUTALITY!!!!!


Reality check... you're handcuffed the officers are in your general area...DON"T RUN! Of course the parents are sueing...:rolleyes:

Adam Wood
02-21-2012, 06:42 PM
It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning:


Snake Alchemist
85. I already agreed that any good cop would have been able to wing her with a bullet so

damage would be minimized and she would have fallen softly to the ground.

LOL! They never, ever get it. They actually believe this "shoot to wound" shit from movies and TV. Utterly clueless.


Here ya go, DUmmies. This is how it's done (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html)


"I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had."

fettpett
02-21-2012, 07:18 PM
Cops are notorious for being shitty shots, i've seen videos of cops unloading clip after clip and not hitting shit...at lest with a taser it's typically harmless

Tipsycatlover
02-21-2012, 08:08 PM
Was she a lib? If so, she had it coming.

Articulate_Ape
02-21-2012, 08:14 PM
Was she a lib? If so, she had it coming.

I would submit that if she was a Liberal, she was brain dead long before her head hit the ground.

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 08:26 PM
Snake Alchemist
85. I already agreed that any good cop would have been able to wing her with a bullet so

damage would be minimized and she would have fallen softly to the ground.
Holy crap. I mean...wow. And if said bullet should 'wing' said perp then continue on it's way and hit someone else, what then?

Odysseus
02-22-2012, 12:00 AM
I would submit that if she was a Liberal, she was brain dead long before her head hit the ground.
Well, if she wasn't a liberal before she was brain dead, she is now.

Holy crap. I mean...wow. And if said bullet should 'wing' said perp then continue on it's way and hit someone else, what then?

The real idiocy is that they don't understand how much damage a bullet does when you're just "winged". Even a small caliber bullet, like a .22, will break bone on impact, and the exit wounds from larger rounds can be horrific. Clearly, being brain dead is a requirement at DU.

NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 12:28 AM
Well, if she wasn't a liberal before she was brain dead, she is now.


The real idiocy is that they don't understand how much damage a bullet does when you're just "winged". Even a small caliber bullet, like a .22, will break bone on impact, and the exit wounds from larger rounds can be horrific. Clearly, being brain dead is a requirement at DU.

Worse yet, most LE departments use hollow points meaning the bullet will fragment on impact. Besides, even in my job where there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999% probability that I will never draw my weapon let alone pull the trigger, we're trained to aim center mass and we don't shoot to wound, we shoot to kill. Most agencies train this way as well. On a side note, when it comes to escaping inmates, we are authorized to shoot in the back as well. :biggrin:

Novaheart
02-22-2012, 01:22 AM
It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning:



LOL! They never, ever get it.

That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that there have been enough cases of police tasering that a person can reasonably conclude that the tasers are not being used as less lethal defense, they are being used a control devices and cattle prods. The police should not be tasering someone because he isn't moving fast enough to please them.

Novaheart
02-22-2012, 01:23 AM
Worse yet, most LE departments use hollow points meaning the bullet will fragment on impact. Besides, even in my job where there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999% probability that I will never draw my weapon let alone pull the trigger, we're trained to aim center mass and we don't shoot to wound, we shoot to kill. Most agencies train this way as well. On a side note, when it comes to escaping inmates, we are authorized to shoot in the back as well. :biggrin:

DO you tase inmates for being mouthy?

Hawkgirl
02-22-2012, 01:34 AM
If it were, Skinner would be charged with genocide.


:lol:

Apache
02-22-2012, 02:06 AM
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that there have been enough cases of police tasering that a person can reasonably conclude that the tasers are not being used as less lethal defense, they are being used a control devices and cattle prods. The police should not be tasering someone because he isn't moving fast enough to please them.

That's right princess. stamp your widdle feet. Those big bad poewees made her drive her car under the influence cause two accidents while being suspended AND flee from custody TWICE.


The big question: Who's not posting at DU now :confused:

Odysseus
02-22-2012, 09:32 AM
Worse yet, most LE departments use hollow points meaning the bullet will fragment on impact. Besides, even in my job where there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999% probability that I will never draw my weapon let alone pull the trigger, we're trained to aim center mass and we don't shoot to wound, we shoot to kill. Most agencies train this way as well. On a side note, when it comes to escaping inmates, we are authorized to shoot in the back as well. :biggrin:
Ouch. I tend to think in terms of FMJ rounds, because that's what we use (hollow points are actually banned by the GC), but that's another issue. Everybody is taught to shoot COM, because it's the largest target and has the most vital organs. The odds of a miss increase dramatically when you try to shoot limbs, and the odds on stopping someone also drop dramatically. You can cause permanent damage, but you may not end up doing enough damage to keep them from killing someone or escaping. You don't casually shoot people to wound them, because the moment that you engage with a firearm, you are using lethal force. If the effects are less than lethal, it's usually not for want of trying.

DUmmies think that bullets are like phasers that can be set to "stun". :rolleyes:


t is significant that the man Clinton turns to for military advice ---who argued against the tanks and APC's for the raid in Mogadishu---is the same Warren Christopher (then a high official in Jimmy Carter's National Security Council) who helped plan the disastrous raid to rescue the hostages in Iran.

At a planning session for the Tehran rescue, the man selected to lead the raid, the late Colonel Charlie Beckwith, was asked what the would do about the Iranian guards. Bechwith, a no-nonsense veteran of special operations, replied that as they came out the door they would be shot in the head---twice---to be sure they couldn't do any harm.

Warren Christopher gasped, grimaced, viscerally shocked, and asked, "Couldn't you just shoot them in the hand?"



DO you tase inmates for being mouthy?
No, he saves that for posters who get mouthy. :D

Starbuck
02-22-2012, 10:12 AM
............. is significant that the man Clinton turns to for military advice ---who argued against the tanks and APC's for the raid in Mogadishu---is the same Warren Christopher (then a high official in Jimmy Carter's National Security Council) who helped plan the disastrous raid to rescue the hostages in Iran.

At a planning session for the Tehran rescue, the man selected to lead the raid, the late Colonel Charlie Beckwith, was asked what the would do about the Iranian guards. Bechwith, a no-nonsense veteran of special operations, replied that as they came out the door they would be shot in the head---twice---to be sure they couldn't do any harm.

Warren Christopher gasped, grimaced, viscerally shocked, and asked, "Couldn't you just shoot them in the hand?" .............

Words fail me when I try to express my disdain for Warren Christopher. A more effete individual never lived. He has no place in any policy setting position.

NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 01:10 PM
DO you tase inmates for being mouthy?

We don't have tasers fuckface. In fact, with the exception of supervisors, we don't have weapons of any kind. So you can take that snarky remark and rub it on your chest.

NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 01:11 PM
they are being used a control devices and cattle prods. The police should not be tasering someone because he isn't moving fast enough to please them.
Please provide definitive proof of this. I'll wait. Not the act of an individual, but please show me which department says this is policy.

NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 01:19 PM
Ouch. I tend to think in terms of FMJ rounds, because that's what we use (hollow points are actually banned by the GC), but that's another issue. Everybody is taught to shoot COM, because it's the largest target and has the most vital organs. The odds of a miss increase dramatically when you try to shoot limbs, and the odds on stopping someone also drop dramatically. You can cause permanent damage, but you may not end up doing enough damage to keep them from killing someone or escaping. You don't casually shoot people to wound them, because the moment that you engage with a firearm, you are using lethal force. If the effects are less than lethal, it's usually not for want of trying.

DUmmies think that bullets are like phasers that can be set to "stun". :rolleyes:


t is significant that the man Clinton turns to for military advice ---who argued against the tanks and APC's for the raid in Mogadishu---is the same Warren Christopher (then a high official in Jimmy Carter's National Security Council) who helped plan the disastrous raid to rescue the hostages in Iran.

At a planning session for the Tehran rescue, the man selected to lead the raid, the late Colonel Charlie Beckwith, was asked what the would do about the Iranian guards. Bechwith, a no-nonsense veteran of special operations, replied that as they came out the door they would be shot in the head---twice---to be sure they couldn't do any harm.

Warren Christopher gasped, grimaced, viscerally shocked, and asked, "Couldn't you just shoot them in the hand?"



No, he saves that for posters who get mouthy. :D
When it comes to my department's use of force, in the end the only way we can use a firearm is to throw it at the perp. We have to take into account where the bullet might land including the possibility that it might go through a wall(the fact that we use hollow points sorta defeats this purpose but we do use rifles that use FMJ which can go through walls). The fact that they built my jail so close to a residential area means that if an inmate is escaping, we really can't shoot at him because we might miss and hit someone in the apartment complex or the development on the other side. At least we're not at bad as Trenton State which is right in the middle of the hood.

Novaheart
02-22-2012, 06:59 PM
Please provide definitive proof of this. I'll wait. Not the act of an individual, but please show me which department says this is policy.

Yeah, after you call me fuckface I should bother talking to you? Do your own homework, start by reading what I actually wrote.

Articulate_Ape
02-22-2012, 07:49 PM
Have you ever been tasered, Nova. I'm just curious, I don't know why.

Apache
02-22-2012, 08:59 PM
Yeah, after you call me fuckface I should bother talking to you? Do your own homework, start by reading what I actually wrote.

Translation: I made the crap up...and you caught me.

Just like the hyperbole in another thread. Oh, and Limbaugh...


Ain't that right, princess?

NJCardFan
02-22-2012, 10:58 PM
Yeah, after you call me fuckface I should bother talking to you? Do your own homework, start by reading what I actually wrote.


DO you tase inmates for being mouthy?
Did I miss something?

Adam Wood
02-23-2012, 09:12 PM
That's true, but it doesn't change the fact that there have been enough cases of police tasering that a person can reasonably conclude that the tasers are not being used as less lethal defense, they are being used a control devices and cattle prods. The police should not be tasering someone because he isn't moving fast enough to please them.Words mean things. Less lethal, not non-lethal. And tasers are not a defensive weapon. Their specific purpose in the world of law enforcement is to inflict a shitload of pain to bring someone into compliance. That is most assuredly a very offensive weapon.

The reason that there are more cases of police using tasers is that fewer police are beating the holy fuck out of someone with their PR-24:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2hdqy3s.jpg

which is the alternate method that police have at their disposal to bring someone into compliance.



What do you expect them to do to get someone to comply? Throw kittens at them?

NJCardFan
02-23-2012, 11:44 PM
PR-24 doesn't quite work when someone is running away. Of course people like Nova would rather the cop just stand there dumbfounded as the perp runs away.

Adam Wood
02-24-2012, 12:01 AM
PR-24 doesn't quite work when someone is running away. Of course people like Nova would rather the cop just stand there dumbfounded as the perp runs away.That's what .40 S&W is for.



Gosh. Suddenly, that taser doesn't sound so bad, does it?

Retread
02-24-2012, 12:28 AM
Please provide definitive proof of this. I'll wait. Not the act of an individual, but please show me which department says this is policy.

Opps - I guess s/he can't.

Apache
02-24-2012, 01:29 AM
Opps - I guess s/he can't.

No, because his "proof" would be from something like prison-planet or some other Leftist site...


and we all KNOW how reliable those types of sites are :rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-24-2012, 02:07 AM
When it comes to my department's use of force, in the end the only way we can use a firearm is to throw it at the perp. We have to take into account where the bullet might land including the possibility that it might go through a wall(the fact that we use hollow points sorta defeats this purpose but we do use rifles that use FMJ which can go through walls). The fact that they built my jail so close to a residential area means that if an inmate is escaping, we really can't shoot at him because we might miss and hit someone in the apartment complex or the development on the other side. At least we're not at bad as Trenton State which is right in the middle of the hood.
I feel your pain. When the DOD first floated the idea of decorating people for "courageous restraint" and changing the ROE so that you practically had to Mirandize the Taliban before you could engage, I knew that the PC had reached critical mass.

Have you ever been tasered, Nova. I'm just curious, I don't know why.
Is there such a thing as a taser fetish? :wink:

Words mean things. Less lethal, not non-lethal. And tasers are not a defensive weapon. Their specific purpose in the world of law enforcement is to inflict a shitload of pain to bring someone into compliance. That is most assuredly a very offensive weapon.

The reason that there are more cases of police using tasers is that fewer police are beating the holy fuck out of someone with their PR-24:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2hdqy3s.jpg

which is the alternate method that police have at their disposal to bring someone into compliance.



What do you expect them to do to get someone to comply? Throw kittens at them?
What? And get PETA all upset?

We can thank Rodney King and the LA rioters for the increased incidence of tazing and the decline of nightstick techniques.

Rockntractor
02-24-2012, 02:27 AM
Have you ever been tasered, Nova. I'm just curious, I don't know why.



Is there such a thing as a taser fetish? :wink:



Nova has been tasered in the head repeatedly.http://planetsmilies.net/violent-smiley-1697.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

NJCardFan
02-24-2012, 07:06 AM
That's what .40 S&W is for.



Gosh. Suddenly, that taser doesn't sound so bad, does it?

Which is why a taser was implemented in the first place. Of course lost on the nova's of the world is if the woman would have stayed still and accepted responsibility for what she had done, she'd still be very much alive.

Novaheart
02-24-2012, 11:50 AM
LOL! They never, ever get it. They actually believe this "shoot to wound" shit from movies and TV.

Speaking of understanding, I got to teach a lesson to Little Darling yesterday about concealed carry. I was explaining to LD why it took so long for me to get to the St Pete Pier. I was riding my bicycle down to meet up with her when three large males were menacing a homeless person on the Pinellas Trail. She wanted to know, basically if I had pulled up like a cowboy and fended them off. I explained to her that since they hadn't actually struck the victim yet, my entering the scene might have escalated the situation making it necessary to shoot and that that was not the objective.

However, as usual I was not disappointed in the uselessness of 911. I stopped a few hundred feet around the corner from this situation and called 911 and gave her the basics "three men attacking a homeless guy on Pinellas Trail east of 34th Street. Apparently the 911 operator decided this needed to go to St Pete nonemergency, so there was that delay, and I had to repeat the situation for St Pete nonemergency. Here is the part which is infuriating.

"There are three large young black males menacing a homeless person on the Pinellas Trail just east of 34th Street."

"North or south?" (The Pinellas Trail is a railway line and doesn't cross 28th street north, any local police operator should be familiar with this transit route)

"South."

"At what avenue?" (Again, the Pinellas trail is its own avenue, it's a fucking railway line.)

"There is no avenue, it's the Pinellas Trail."

"I understand that, sir, but I need a cross street." (As I write this I see the problem: she's filling in the blanks on a computer screen and can't adapt to a situation where that doesn't apply.)

"The Pinellas Trail is the cross street, they are on the trail."

"Sir, I need to know what avenue so I can direct the officers."

"Never mind." and I hung up.

I take responsibility for my aggravation in this situation- I should have stuck with my policy of calling up, stating the problem and location and hanging up.

She called me back a minute or two later, with a different attitude, having apparently had the Pinellas Trail explained to her by someone else there, and simply asked me to describe the suspects. Mind you I am now stopped, on my bicycle, in front of a blight zone house where these guys or their cousins might live. But she did say that the officers had someone they were talking to.

NJCardFan
02-24-2012, 12:43 PM
And this has exactly what to do with the conversation Mr. Deflection?

Madisonian
02-24-2012, 05:00 PM
I have always found that mentioning "I thought I heard shots fired" usually get their attention in a true emergency situation.

Odysseus
02-24-2012, 05:57 PM
Nova has been tasered in the head repeatedly.http://planetsmilies.net/violent-smiley-1697.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)
As long as he enjoys it, I guess...


Which is why a taser was implemented in the first place. Of course lost on the nova's of the world is if the woman would have stayed still and accepted responsibility for what she had done, she'd still be very much alive.
Yes, but responsibility isn't in the liberal lexicon.

Speaking of understanding, I got to teach a lesson to Little Darling yesterday about concealed carry. I was explaining to LD why it took so long for me to get to the St Pete Pier. I was riding my bicycle down to meet up with her when three large males were menacing a homeless person on the Pinellas Trail. She wanted to know, basically if I had pulled up like a cowboy and fended them off. I explained to her that since they hadn't actually struck the victim yet, my entering the scene might have escalated the situation making it necessary to shoot and that that was not the objective.

Are you implying that you have a concealed carry permit?

djones520
02-26-2012, 09:24 PM
Ouch. I tend to think in terms of FMJ rounds, because that's what we use (hollow points are actually banned by the GC), but that's another issue. Everybody is taught to shoot COM, because it's the largest target and has the most vital organs. The odds of a miss increase dramatically when you try to shoot limbs, and the odds on stopping someone also drop dramatically. You can cause permanent damage, but you may not end up doing enough damage to keep them from killing someone or escaping. You don't casually shoot people to wound them, because the moment that you engage with a firearm, you are using lethal force. If the effects are less than lethal, it's usually not for want of trying.

DUmmies think that bullets are like phasers that can be set to "stun". :rolleyes:


t is significant that the man Clinton turns to for military advice ---who argued against the tanks and APC's for the raid in Mogadishu---is the same Warren Christopher (then a high official in Jimmy Carter's National Security Council) who helped plan the disastrous raid to rescue the hostages in Iran.

At a planning session for the Tehran rescue, the man selected to lead the raid, the late Colonel Charlie Beckwith, was asked what the would do about the Iranian guards. Bechwith, a no-nonsense veteran of special operations, replied that as they came out the door they would be shot in the head---twice---to be sure they couldn't do any harm.

Warren Christopher gasped, grimaced, viscerally shocked, and asked, "Couldn't you just shoot them in the hand?"



No, he saves that for posters who get mouthy. :D

Police use hollow point rounds in the interest of public safety. Having the bullet fragment easier on impact means less possibility of full penetration and hitting innocent bystanders.

We in the military aren't as concerned about that. At the same time the GC tries to keep war "clean" and FMJ rounds are more likely to achieve a smooth penetration, which are easier to have docs patch up. Having our rounds shatter inside of the body pretty much assures there is no hope.

It's funny that our nations enemies are in a way afforded more protection then street thugs trying to car jack someone.

Novaheart
02-26-2012, 10:20 PM
I have always found that mentioning "I thought I heard shots fired" usually get their attention in a true emergency situation.

I don't want to lie to them, but I would understand. Each time I have called them as a good citizen or a storekeeper, they have made me sorry I bothered. So I decided that from how on I would simply call, state the problem and the location and hang up. I have done that in the past, but this time I forgot.

DumbAss Tanker
02-27-2012, 01:16 PM
I would submit that if she was a Liberal, she was brain dead long before her head hit the ground.

Well, if she was a registered Democrat, I'm sure she'll still be voting anyway.