Set phasers to stun, Spock!

[Patriot]

Hey! Who said you could quote me in shoring up your opinion of someone else's post!? I demand a royalty!  
By the way, did your leos perhaps get a grant for those tazers? Ours come up with good stuff often from Homeland Security $.

No there was no grant.  They got some of that recently for new vests (laundry detergent was to complicated)... and they got permission for that purchase.  This money came from an equipment fund.  That doesn't change the county by-law regarding approval for the the expenditure.

I'll send you a cyber-quarter for the royalty.

[chaoticowboy]

Patriot is right about the County Policy on how much can be spent with out prior approval, Toirtap keep in mind the hand guns, cuffs, belt, holsters, and any other tactical gear is not purchaced by the County or our tax dollars, is bought by the LEO who will be using it. This includes uniforms with the exception of one dress uniform payed for by the county, all of these things are dictated by the incumbant, and needs to be changed. I want to know why we would need tasers in the first place, I never felt the need for one, and damnsure never hid and watched a suspect for 30 minutes while I waited for another County to come and taze him for me.

[Patriot]

Patriot is right about the County Policy on how much can be spent with out prior approval, Toirtap keep in mind the hand guns, cuffs, belt, holsters, and any other tactical gear is not purchaced by the County or our tax dollars, is bought by the LEO who will be using it. This includes uniforms with the exception of one dress uniform payed for by the county, all of these things are dictated by the incumbant, and needs to be changed. I want to know why we would need tasers in the first place, I never felt the need for one, and damnsure never hid and watched a suspect for 30 minutes while I waited for another County to come and taze him for me.

Thanks for the affirmation.  The visual created in your last sentence is a real 'Barney Fife' moment!  I'll be chuckling for days... all things considered.

[srkruzich]

You constant read things into conversations that are simply not there so with your limited grasp I could see how you would read a threat I'n to anything.  Paranoid much.....

If you are stupid enough to be confronted by law enforcement and fail to comply repeatedly they should shoot.  It is their judgment as to who, where, or what they choose to use to defuse your stupidity. 

Only if I or anyone else is being confronted for committing a crime or a valid lawfully exercised warrant (Not counting these illegal no knock warrants), 

You can defend yourself with lethal force against any and all law enforcement who try to preform a unlawful arrest. The maximum penalty would be manslaughter.  Most people are dumb enough to allow police to violate their rights these days. 

"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

[srkruzich]

Hey! Who said you could quote me in shoring up your opinion of someone else's post!? I demand a royalty! 
   Hey Steve, ya might fibrillate, but it takes a shock to defib ya.
By the way, did your leos perhaps get a grant for those tazers? Ours come up with good stuff often from Homeland Security $.

You going to GUARANTEE me that the taser won't kill me?  I would love to have that in writing Diane.

[Diane Amberg]

I didn't say anything about the tazer not killing you ...it won't cause you to "defib" as you wrote. You just used the wrong word and my poke went right past you, and yes, I can get that in writing if you want. Any CPR book will explain it.  Defib. is what the AED shock does to try to re-regulate the heart when it's in fibrillation. Whew....never mind.

[jarhead]

I was told by an Independence city cop, several years back, that to carry /use a taser, you yourself have to experience being tased so you know what it does to a person. Maybe one of you smart people can find out if that is true and if so, has Elk county sheriff and deputies been tased ?

[Patriot]

I was told by an Independence city cop, several years back, that to carry /use a taser, you yourself have to experience being tased so you know what it does to a person. Maybe one of you smart people can find out if that is true and if so, has Elk county sheriff and deputies been tased ?

I was wondering the same things.... and can we sell tickets to the training class for spectators? 

But really, why no advanced approval for the taser expense?  Why have these policies if some folks are allowed to bypass them?  Or, why keep employees that do?  Election's are coming.

[Sarge]

Being an elected official, once the Sheriff's budget is approved he/she can spend it however he/she sees fit. The only time the Sheriff would need approval is if money was needed from the general fund.  It's been awhile since I was involved, but that's the way it used to be and that was a ruling by the state.

[jhongreen]

I guess this last post by Sarge proves what we all knew already Patriot doesn't even know crap from his own arse.