On TV news last night they showed a video of a police officer talking
to a man resting on a sofa in his own home. His wife had called
saying that he had a heart attack and should go to hospital. The man
refused to go
preferring to rest rather than go to hospital for treatment as he
could not afford it. The police officer then tazered him to make him
go to hospital! The chief of Police said that standard protocol had
been followed.
Only in America!!!!
I wonder if he is still married to the woman
or he cancelled his insurance policy?

On 9/3/2010 8:07 AM, Art Unwin wrote:
On TV news last night they showed a video of a police officer talking
to a man resting on a sofa in his own home. His wife had called
saying that he had a heart attack and should go to hospital. The man
refused to go
preferring to rest rather than go to hospital for treatment as he
could not afford it. The police officer then tazered him to make him
go to hospital! The chief of Police said that standard protocol had
been followed.
Only in America!!!!
I wonder if he is still married to the woman
or he cancelled his insurance policy?

Art,

Was he holding an antenna?

Anyway, if I'd been present, I would have been arrested. I would have
considered force, up to the point and including lethal, would have been
justified in stopping such a revolting display. Somehow, tazing an ill
man having, apparently, a heart attack/pains puts that individual
preforming the action below chit, in my world ... sad, so very, very sad
.... it is why the wife and I are considering a move to Montana; I just
hate the cold.

Regards,
JS

In message , John Smith
writes
On 9/3/2010 8:07 AM, Art Unwin wrote:
On TV news last night they showed a video of a police officer talking
to a man resting on a sofa in his own home. His wife had called
saying that he had a heart attack and should go to hospital. The man
refused to go
preferring to rest rather than go to hospital for treatment as he
could not afford it. The police officer then tazered him to make him
go to hospital! The chief of Police said that standard protocol had
been followed.
Only in America!!!!
I wonder if he is still married to the woman
or he cancelled his insurance policy?

Art,

Was he holding an antenna?

Anyway, if I'd been present, I would have been arrested. I would have
considered force, up to the point and including lethal, would have been
justified in stopping such a revolting display. Somehow, tazing an ill
man having, apparently, a heart attack/pains puts that individual
preforming the action below chit, in my world ... sad, so very, very
sad ... it is why the wife and I are considering a move to Montana; I
just hate the cold.


I'm sure it was all done with the best intentions. What probably
happened was that the police officer suspected that the husband's heart
rhythms had gone all twitchy, and he needed to apply a spot of instant
defibrillation to save his life.

But rest assured that this sort of thing doesn't only happen in America.
In the UK, where the police still, for the most part, do not carry
firearms, they now carry a veritable arsenal of supposedly non-lethal
devices (including tasers). While these are only supposed to be used as
a last resort, when a miscreant cannot be subdued by the more
traditional methods, they are increasingly being used, as in America, to
ensure instant compliance.
--
Ian

On 9/3/2010 8:40 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:


I'm sure it was all done with the best intentions. What probably
happened was that the police officer suspected that the husband's heart
rhythms had gone all twitchy, and he needed to apply a spot of instant
defibrillation to save his life.


Oh man, am I embarrassed. Just shows my negativity!

Your satire is greatly enjoyed. LOL

Regards,
JS

Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm sure it was all done with the best intentions. What probably
happened was that the police officer suspected that the husband's heart
rhythms had gone all twitchy, and he needed to apply a spot of instant
defibrillation to save his life.

Yes, very clever. When you only have a tazer at hand it probably is
a good choice. Over here one finds special-purpose electroshock devices
in many public places, and police officers often carry one in their car,
but not on their belt. So he must have figured the tazer was better
than nothing in this case.

On Sep 4, 6:59*am, Rob wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm sure it was all done with the best intentions. What probably
happened was that the police officer suspected that the husband's heart
rhythms had gone all twitchy, and he needed to apply a spot of instant
defibrillation to save his life.

Yes, very clever. *When you only have a tazer at hand it probably is
a good choice. *Over here one finds special-purpose electroshock devices
in many public places, and police officers often carry one in their car,
but not on their belt. *So he must have figured the tazer was better
than nothing in this case.

See the video for yourself
abc.com

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 07:43:43 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

See the video for yourself
abc.com

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Art Unwin
wrote:

Heh, this group is so full of negativety and poor judgement so I
thought that Katie Curic news story
yesterday should be jollied up a bit, so that instead of laughing at
others we should try being the recipient to see if our actions hurts
others.

Did Katie Couric leave CBS for ABC or is Art jollying up fact with
fiction again?

On Sep 3, 10:07*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On TV news last night they showed a video of a police officer talking
to a man resting on a sofa in his own home. His wife had called
saying that he had a heart attack and should go to hospital. The man
refused to go
preferring to rest rather than go to hospital for treatment as he
could not afford it. The police officer then tazered him to make him
go to hospital! The chief of Police said that standard protocol had
been followed.
Only in America!!!!
I wonder if he is still married to the woman
or he cancelled his insurance policy?

AFTERMATH.
The judge dismissed charges against the police officer after being
shown police rules that recipients of a tazer gun MUST be taken to
hospital prior to internment.
The same judge dismissed divorce proceedings stating irreconcilable
differences had not been proven and the husband was to pay all court
costs.
The above part anticipates what is yet to happen.

On 9/3/2010 9:01 AM, Art Unwin wrote:

...
AFTERMATH.
The judge dismissed charges against the police officer after being
shown police rules that recipients of a tazer gun MUST be taken to
hospital prior to internment.
The same judge dismissed divorce proceedings stating irreconcilable
differences had not been proven and the husband was to pay all court
costs.
The above part anticipates what is yet to happen.

Yeah, may even be looking at our next president, the cop.

That kind of judgment, logic and actions seem popular with our
criminal/treasonous public servants, these days ...

Regards,
JS

In message
, Art
Unwin writes
On Sep 3, 10:07*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On TV news last night they showed a video of a police officer talking
to a man resting on a sofa in his own home. His wife had called
saying that he had a heart attack and should go to hospital. The man
refused to go
preferring to rest rather than go to hospital for treatment as he
could not afford it. The police officer then tazered him to make him
go to hospital! The chief of Police said that standard protocol had
been followed.
Only in America!!!!
I wonder if he is still married to the woman
or he cancelled his insurance policy?

AFTERMATH.
The judge dismissed charges against the police officer after being
shown police rules that recipients of a tazer gun MUST be taken to
hospital prior to internment.

I first read that as 'interment', and thought, "How inconvenient!".

The same judge dismissed divorce proceedings stating irreconcilable
differences had not been proven and the husband was to pay all court
costs.
The above part anticipates what is yet to happen.
--
Ian