Man Dies After Police Taze Him For Being On Roof (Updated)

[Dyakovo]

I'm sorry, do you have sources about standard Phoenix arrest procedures?
If not, I'd suggest we wait for further information before jumping down each other's throats about who was in the wrong here. As it stands regardless, though, the actions of the police led to his death. That requires investigation.

No, and of course there should be investigation however until that time, benefit of doubt should be given to police rather than a druggie.

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

[Kronstad]

1. Your examples don't capture the big picture... in which the police are on the whole the forces of righteousness locked in a constant battle against the evil that is crime... for our freedom, security, and prosperity (yes, even of those who don't appreciate their efforts).
2. The police catch criminals. That's how it works. They protect us. Sometimes they makes mistakes (rarely). That's it. Don't overcomplicate it.
I'd love to teleport you to a world without the police just to see how you'd like it. I bet you would drop everything you are advocating for right now...
See you live under the blanket of security the police provide... and yet you join the ''Fuck the PO-lice'' crowd... It's almost as if people like you WANT the police to fall and lose against the criminals.

1. This is exactly what I was talking about, you seem to think that a few ideas which have absolutely no empirical basis are the exact reality. Dream on; maybe you'll wake up in a few decades, or perhaps never. Dream on.
2. I didn't say police shouldn't exist at all, that's what you said.
2. Some policemen, currently, are the criminals. They need restrictions and reform; I don't wanna call 911 to get killed by a police officer. At least thieves steal from necessity; police kill for pleasure or from hatred. Criminals, also, kill because they weren't brought up properly; police is expected to defend people. But yeah, I suppose it's normal to call police and get killed/abused...some criminal fighters they are.

[Wisconsin9]

Why do you seem to hate the cops so much?
Who is out there risking their lives to fight criminals? I don't think it's you.

Here are examples of police officers behaviour:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/lapd-abuse for a few links
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 58208.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 49031.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 40440.html
This is why you can't trust the police.

Because fuck the hundreds, if not thousands of actual criminals they put their safety on the line to catch each day! A few people fucked up, as humans are wont to do, so they're all horrible sociopathic bastards who only got into the biz to take their problems out on others!

[God Kefka]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyg32CPyKNc
http://www.wistv.com/story/23178374/fam ... sons-death



Discussion topic: what can be done to decrease the number of incidents of police brutality, which are becoming more and more common in the United States?

Living in Scandinavia (and so going mostly by what I read in the news and see on YouTube), I would suggest that you could do away with the notion of "overwhelming force". Seems to me that the police have now become so militarized that their default reaction to any incident, smelling ever so slightly of danger, is to draw their guns and tasers. And once you got your guns drawn, it's all to easy to get a bad case of nerves. Everybody is on edge, yelling and screaming, and if one officer snaps and starts shooting everybody follows suit and the suspect ends up riddle with bullets, deserved or not...

If, on the other hand, guns were still holstered and voices were kept down, then there would be less of a chance of someone snapping.

Yes, this might mean that, from time to time, a suspect will get to shoot first. But that's why officers are well trained and well paid - to minimize such occurrences. At least, in theory...


Remember the old saying about how having a hammer makes every problem look like a nail? Well, when you're constantly on the look for guns, driving around with pistols, rifles, bulletproof vests, tasers, etc. in your car, then perhaps the temptation to shoot first becomes overwhelming.


Of course, the glorification of violence that permeates the American culture cannot be ignored. When you have that many guns in the hands of the public, and a general sense that violence is acceptable and that "might makes right"... Well... I guess it's not unreasonable for officers to assume that they will regularly be meet with deadly violence.

I bet you would say something different if YOU had to wear a uniform and be on the front line in the war against crime in the United States of America!

See I don't understand why people want to put all these obstacles in the way of brave men and women who risk their lives everyday to protect us from criminal filth. Yeah they make mistakes from time to time but look at the big picture! And imagine a world without cops dude!

Now you want to put more red tape against officers drawing their weapons when they feel they are threatened... wow... just wow...

Have you forgotten how easy it is for criminals to get guns in America? You want the police to walk into dangerous places without their guns drawn?

[Orcoa]

Here are examples of police officers behaviour:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/lapd-abuse for a few links
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 58208.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 49031.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 40440.html
This is why you can't trust the police.

Four instances are why you can't trust any police?

Of course!

Didn't you know that all cops are dog killing, baby stomping, SS stormtroopers?

Get with reality bro!

(Sarcasm of course)

[Kronstad]

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

Did you watch the video?

[Ceannairceach]

No, and of course there should be investigation however until that time, benefit of doubt should be given to police rather than a druggie.

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

From the article:
"Michael Angel Ruiz's family tells us while he had a history with drugs, and even a run-in with the law, he was trying to lead an honest life."

Of course, this is no reason to assume he was on drugs or otherwise a "druggie" when this event happened.

[Great Nepal]

No, and of course there should be investigation however until that time, benefit of doubt should be given to police rather than a druggie.

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

Statement from his FAMILY, which states "he had a history with drugs".

[Empire of Symphonia]

While it is deplorable that someone died because of police actions, I don't believe that flaming police departments everywhere is right either. By the logic of the OP, if an innocent man could be tazed for merely being on the roof, then I wonder why my school's security resource officer hasn't tazed all those kissing couples in the hallways for indecency yet.

Hmm.

Either way, I want to know the full story rather than just the scene where the police kill the criminal or the innocent bystander.

[Great Nepal]

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

From the article:
"Michael Angel Ruiz's family tells us while he had a history with drugs, and even a run-in with the law, he was trying to lead an honest life."

Of course, this is no reason to assume he was on drugs or otherwise a "druggie" when this event happened.

Person A: He used drugs. He had run in with law several times.
Person B: Officer of the law.

If two of these statements contradict, second person deserves benefit of doubt.

[Ceannairceach]

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

Statement from his FAMILY, which states "he had a history with drugs".

Implying that he PREVIOUSLY had a drug problem, and nothing more. Whether he was on drugs or not at the time of his arrest is pure speculation.

[Ceannairceach]

From the article:
"Michael Angel Ruiz's family tells us while he had a history with drugs, and even a run-in with the law, he was trying to lead an honest life."

Of course, this is no reason to assume he was on drugs or otherwise a "druggie" when this event happened.

Person A: He used drugs. He had run in with law several times.
Person B: Officer of the law.

If two of these statements contradict, second person deserves benefit of doubt.

Bullshit. Both get the benefit of the doubt. This isn't an "one or the other" situation. And don't misrepresent the quote; A run in with the law is not the same as several.

[God Kefka]

Person A: He used drugs. He had run in with law several times.
Person B: Officer of the law.

If two of these statements contradict, second person deserves benefit of doubt.

Bullshit. Both get the benefit of the doubt. This isn't an "one or the other" situation.

Police should get the advantage here...

People who use drugs shouldn't be trusted over an upstanding officer of the law. If we had to choose one... it would be the police.

If you insist on keeping them both equal... then you are suspending common sense I'd say

[Kronstad]

1. I bet you would say something different if YOU had to wear a uniform and be on the front line in the war against crime in the United States of America!
2. See I don't understand why people want to put all these obstacles in the way of brave men and women who risk their lives everyday to protect us from criminal filth. Yeah they make mistakes from time to time but look at the big picture! And imagine a world without cops dude!
3. Have you forgotten how easy it is for criminals to get guns in America? You want the police to walk into dangerous places without their guns drawn?

1. A normal person would either not become a US officer or he would not start shooting for no reason; 5 armed policemen versus one unarmed guy, they shoot tasers several times. A normal persons wouldn't.
2. Again, the redundant argument of shifting topics and winning points in parallel discussions. No one said there should no police. They could just do with some reforms, as the guy suggested. But yes, please change the discussion from training police to having none at all. And also, Marxism doesn't need police.
3. It is indeed a mystery who allowed all those guns in America and who still allows everyone to buy them without even psychological testing...

[Dyakovo]

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

Statement from his FAMILY, which states "he had a history with drugs".

"Had a history with drugs"=/="Currently a 'druggie'"

[Orcoa]

Statement from his FAMILY, which states "he had a history with drugs".

Implying that he PREVIOUSLY had a drug problem, and nothing more. Whether he was on drugs or not at the time of his arrest is pure speculation.

Till the autopsy comes out and we get a full police report on what happened, I will not come to judgement so till then I think we really don't need to over-react.

Is this horrible? Oh yeah, its terrible that somebody died.

Is this a clear sign that all cops are bad? or that people who have a history of doing drugs are uncontrollable fiends?

That answer would of course be No.

[Great Nepal]

Statement from his FAMILY, which states "he had a history with drugs".

Implying that he PREVIOUSLY had a drug problem, and nothing more. Whether he was on drugs or not at the time of his arrest is pure speculation.

If he had been clean, the FAMILY would have jumped at opportunity to say that. They say "he had history with drugs, few run in with the laws but was trying to lead a honest life".

Person A: He used drugs. He had run in with law several times.
Person B: Officer of the law.
If two of these statements contradict, second person deserves benefit of doubt.

Bullshit. Both get the benefit of the doubt. This isn't an "one or the other" situation.

This is a one or other situation, two versions contradict each other.

[Ceannairceach]

Bullshit. Both get the benefit of the doubt. This isn't an "one or the other" situation.

Police should get the advantage here...

People who use drugs shouldn't be trusted over an upstanding officer of the law. If we had to choose one... it would be the police.

If you insist on keeping them both equal... then you are suspending common sense I'd say

Fuck that bullshit. Innocent until proven guilty.

[Wisconsin9]

1. I bet you would say something different if YOU had to wear a uniform and be on the front line in the war against crime in the United States of America!
2. See I don't understand why people want to put all these obstacles in the way of brave men and women who risk their lives everyday to protect us from criminal filth. Yeah they make mistakes from time to time but look at the big picture! And imagine a world without cops dude!
3. Have you forgotten how easy it is for criminals to get guns in America? You want the police to walk into dangerous places without their guns drawn?

1. A normal person would either not become a US officer or he would not start shooting for no reason; 5 armed policemen versus one unarmed guy, they shoot tasers several times. A normal persons wouldn't.
2. Again, the redundant argument of shifting topics and winning points in parallel discussions. No one said there should no police. They could just do with some reforms, as the guy suggested. But yes, please change the discussion from training police to having none at all. And also, Marxism doesn't need police.
3. It is indeed a mystery who allowed all those guns in America and who still allows everyone to buy them without even psychological testing...

How's about you walk up to a man who may or may not be armed, may or may not have any problems with killing you, and start talking about something that's likely to piss that man off, and we'll see exactly how well you do.

[Ifreann]

No, and of course there should be investigation however until that time, benefit of doubt should be given to police rather than a druggie.

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

Only druggies get up on roofs.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Shit guys, we could just leave this thread at "innocent until proven guilty" and leave the acquittal/prosecution of the officers involved until we have some concrete evidence.

If the OP wants to talk police brutality, he needs a better OP than an example not yet proven and claims of prevalent brutality not sourced.

[Orcoa]

What evidence do you have that the guy in the story was a "druggie"?

Only druggies get up on roofs.

Or jews with fiddles

[Kronstad]

Fuck that bullshit. Innocent until proven guilty.

Not in the US, it seems. There applies a "shoot then judge" policy there, or so it seems.
"Better safe than sorry" seems more appropriate in regards to police mentality in the US; or "guilty until proven innocent", because anyone could have a gun and start pointing out at the police.

[Ceannairceach]

Implying that he PREVIOUSLY had a drug problem, and nothing more. Whether he was on drugs or not at the time of his arrest is pure speculation.

If he had been clean, the FAMILY would have jumped at opportunity to say that. They say "he had history with drugs, few run in with the laws but was trying to lead a honest life".

This is a one or other situation, two versions contradict each other.

The family did jump at that. He had a history with drugs. And now is trying to lead an honest life. Stop misrepresenting what they said.

Not at all. There isn't even enough information from both parties for there to be contradiction. The sum total of the knowledge is that Ruiz was on the roof, he jumped off, and was tazed, cuffed and choked by police, who then moved his body without support for his head. Based on that information alone Ruiz's side should have the advantage, but I'm willing to assume that the police had a good reason to do so until more information is given.

[DogDoo 7]

And it's just as likely that he was high as a kite (his parents mentioned that he had a drug problem), and had been up there for a while, and the cops were supposed to make sure he didn't hurt himself.

But fuck waiting for the investigation to finish! Let's jump to conclusions and persecute these morons! Besides, even if the investigation says something different, the cops are probably corrupt so we're still right!

dragging the guy down the stairs is prima facie unacceptable and cause for punishment. so yeah, we can get all outraged regardless whether or not the police were justified for tazing him.