Plan B Forum

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri May 26, 2023 12:37 pm

Here’s a great story from the annals of American policing. Make sure you read in full before commenting, or else you might say something foolish.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ident.html

Cop should hang. Victim should get at least half a billion in punitive damages.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri May 26, 2023 4:44 pm

I read it. The cop was stupid. Obviously he realized the danger of fire (shouting for the pump to be turned off) and yet he still sent the electric sparkles into the fuel-laden air, burning both the motorcycle guy and himself terribly in the process. Excessively stupid. But what (other than that) is the point? That he deliberately incinerated both parties in some display of macho me-ism?

Perhaps some over-aggression is the point. Why fire the taser at all? The story wasn't very clear on the alternatives altho' we can make our own should-a-bins. I stick with "really dumb" until shown otherwise.

He wanted to torture the guy.

Per Meade:

Perhaps you mean, "Koffinas' taser didn't start the fire but it was a distinctly possible outcome of such carelessness". So he should be punished for what didn't happen but might have happened if he'd done it.

People are punished for driving drunk all the time even if they cause no accident. Of course if they do actually maim or kill someone the punishment is harsher, but the DUI laws are all about preventing what might happen.

ex-khobar Andy wrote: ↑

Sun May 28, 2023 1:14 pm

Per Meade:

Perhaps you mean, "Koffinas' taser didn't start the fire but it was a distinctly possible outcome of such carelessness". So he should be punished for what didn't happen but might have happened if he'd done it.

People are punished for driving drunk all the time even if they cause no accident. Of course if they do actually maim or kill someone the punishment is harsher, but the DUI laws are all about preventing what might happen.

I don't think you really understood the point. But . . .

For your analogy to be valid, driving a vehicle while intoxicated would have to be "not-a-crime" in itself. But it is a crime. So people are punished for that, not for "might have had an accident" which AFAIK is not a crime. See the difference?

Now it's possible that it should be illegal for a policeperson to use a taser. When it is, then the use will be the crime, whether or not someone is immolated. Though if that also happens, then there's laws about not causing injury, whether by stupidity or on purpose (your sentences may vary).

I would think that, if it isn't already illegal it certainly SHOULD be illegal to use a taser in a dangerous or irresponsible manner, or in a situation where such use has a high probability of causing a lot of "collateral damage". And firing a taser in a gas station, at a running gas pump, surrounded by explosive gasoline vapors would be a textbook example of "dangerous", "irresponsible", and "high probability of collateral damage". (The next example that comes to mind would be firing a taser into a crowd of people in a busy public space.)

And despite the horrifying video and the unbelievable stupidity of the situation, this may the most frightening sentence in the whole story:

In the wake of the fire, [Sheriff] López said at a town hall that he was not considering changing the tactics his force uses for similar future arrests.