What are the police supposed to do if you resist arrest and try to use a police TASER on the cops?

Trampledunderfoot, LPN · Jun 21, 2020

6 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:
Confederate lives were the lives of traitors and white supremacists. Do we still have confederate lives to worry about?
King's life and words did matter, that's why he was murdered.

Don't believe everything you learn in public school. Confederates wanted to succeed from the Union, which was within their rights. The Union did not want them too. Period. Confederates were no more traitors or white supremacists than people in the Union. Northerners had slaves, too. Did you not hear about how a George Washington statue was knocked down because he also had slaves? Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. That is just what they want you to believe.

If Confederate lives no longer matter because they aren't still here, then King's life does not matter because he is not here, and George Floyd's life does not matter because he is not here. I don't know about you, but I don't believe this.

chare · Jun 21, 2020

8 hours ago, beachynurse said:
16 hours ago, NurseBlaq said:
Think about it.
Well, it's not applicable to this case because the taser was inactive and the police knew it. What's the next excuse?
The taser wasn’t inactive. If you watch the video, you can see the taser fire.

Thus rendering it inactive, before he was shot.

allnurses Guide · Jun 22, 2020

2 hours ago, Trampledunderfoot said:
Don't believe everything you learn in public school. Confederates wanted to succeed from the Union, which was within their rights. The Union did not want them too. Period. Confederates were no more traitors or white supremacists than people in the Union. Northerners had slaves, too. Did you not hear about how a George Washington statue was knocked down because he also had slaves? Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. That is just what they want you to believe.
If Confederate lives no longer matter because they aren't still here, then King's life does not matter because he is not here, and George Floyd's life does not matter because he is not here. I don't know about you, but I don't believe this.

Of course all lives matter. But I disagree that those who fought against the United States of America because they wanted to continue owning people as property should be honored by the U.S.A.

Quote
DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION AND THE ORDINANCE OF SECESSION
... The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a federal government, in which each state was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions.
The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this government was instituted have been defeated, and the government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding states.
Those states have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the states and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other states.
They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection...
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolinas-declaration-of-the-causes-of-secession/

beachynurse, ASN, BSN · Jun 22, 2020

3 hours ago, Trampledunderfoot said:

Don't believe everything you learn in public school. Confederates wanted to succeed from the Union, which was within their rights. The Union did not want them too. Period. Confederates were no more traitors or white supremacists than people in the Union. Northerners had slaves, too. Did you not hear about how a George Washington statue was knocked down because he also had slaves? Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. That is just what they want you to believe.

If Confederate lives no longer matter because they aren't still here, then King's life does not matter because he is not here, and George Floyd's life does not matter because he is not here. I don't know about you, but I don't believe this.

Of course all lives matter. But I disagree that those who fought against the United States of America because they wanted to continue owning people as property should be honored by the U.S.A.

Beachynurse said:

The statement the those that fought against the United States because they wanted to continue owning people as property is inaccurate. The south seceded from the union over states rights, slavery was not a major, and barely a minor issue for the war. Especially since there was slavery in parts of the north. People paint the southern states and the Confederacy as being so awful when the northern states were none so innocent either. So what do you want to destroy in the North?

allnurses Guide · Jun 22, 2020

51 minutes ago, beachynurse said:
3 hours ago, Trampledunderfoot said:
Don't believe everything you learn in public school. Confederates wanted to succeed from the Union, which was within their rights. The Union did not want them too. Period. Confederates were no more traitors or white supremacists than people in the Union. Northerners had slaves, too. Did you not hear about how a George Washington statue was knocked down because he also had slaves? Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. That is just what they want you to believe.
If Confederate lives no longer matter because they aren't still here, then King's life does not matter because he is not here, and George Floyd's life does not matter because he is not here. I don't know about you, but I don't believe this.
Of course all lives matter. But I disagree that those who fought against the United States of America because they wanted to continue owning people as property should be honored by the U.S.A.
Beachynurse said:
The statement the those that fought against the United States because they wanted to continue owning people as property is inaccurate. The south seceded from the union over states rights, slavery was not a major, and barely a minor issue for the war. Especially since there was slavery in parts of the north. People paint the southern states and the Confederacy as being so awful when the northern states were none so innocent either. So what do you want to destroy in the North?

Please read the post before this. It is a partial quote from the South Carolina declaration of the reasons or causes of cessation from the union.

Or just read this: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

beachynurse, ASN, BSN · Jun 22, 2020

40 minutes ago, herring_RN said:
Please read the post before this. It is a partial quote from the South Carolina declaration of the reasons or causes of cessation from the union.
Or just read this: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

That was South Carolina, but the facts are the war was fought mostly overstates rights, and how much control they wanted the federal government to have over them.

Trampledunderfoot, LPN · Jun 22, 2020

3 hours ago, herring_RN said:
Of course all lives matter. But I disagree that those who fought against the United States of America because they wanted to continue owning people as property should be honored by the U.S.A.

If you were right, you might have a point. You are not right, and therefore don't have a valid point.

toomuchbaloney · Jun 22, 2020

36 minutes ago, Trampledunderfoot said:
If you were right, you might have a point. You are not right, and therefore don't have a valid point.

In your opinion. In differing opinions, it was a valid point. Why should the USA honor traitors and racists?

allnurses Guide · Jun 22, 2020

1 hour ago, Trampledunderfoot said:
If you were right, you might have a point. You are not right, and therefore don't have a valid point.

I would appreciate knowing what "STATES RIGHTS" other than ownership of humans as property were written in the Declarations of Seceding States. I may have missed something. Please though first read the words the states wrote about why they no longer wanted to be part of the United States of America. Here is just one more, but the link includes the declarations of other states too:

Quote
"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.
Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation... (Followed by their version of the economic history of the U.S.A. before 1860)
... The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity. This question was before us. We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice.... (More history from their point of view)
... The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.
The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.
With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers. The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization...
... The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations... (More history and such)
... The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.
Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B · Jun 22, 2020

Herring, you left one thing out of the post above. The mic drop emoji.

A Hit With The Ladies, BSN, RN · Jun 22, 2020

16 hours ago, chare said:
Thus rendering it inactive, before he was shot.

Hooo boy... let's break this down...

Suppose you have a gun with one bullet in it, and fire that gun at a police officer. Does the officer have the right to take you down?

What if you threw a knife or a harpoon at a police officer? Aren't you a direct threat to the officer's life?

The officer did what he had to do. If Brooks hadn't fired that TASER at the cop, I would be against the officer's lethal use of force. But since Brooks did fire the TASER, the officer was 100% justified in bringing Brooks down!

chare · Jun 22, 2020

7 hours ago, A Hit With The Ladies said:
Hooo boy... let's break this down...
Suppose you have a gun with one bullet in it, and fire that gun at a police officer. Does the officer have the right to take you down?
[...]

Possibly. If the officer was unaware that there was only one round in the weapon, he or she would likely be justified in using lethal force. However, and I admit this would be unlikely, if the officer knew that the weapon was empty then no, the use of lethal force would most likely not be justified.

7 hours ago, A Hit With The Ladies said:
[...]
What if you threw a knife or a harpoon at a police officer? Aren't you a direct threat to the officer's life?
[...]

After throwing the knife or harpoon at the police officer I no longer pose a lethal threat. In this case the use of lethal force would most likely not be justified.

7 hours ago, A Hit With The Ladies said:
[...]
The officer did what he had to do. If Brooks hadn't fired that TASER at the cop, I would be against the officer's lethal use of force. But since Brooks did fire the TASER, the officer was 100% justified in bringing Brooks down!

If, and I don’t agree with your premise that it is, the TASER is a lethal weapon, then the use of lethal force might be justified prior to discharging the TASER. However, after the TASER was discharged it no longer constitutes a threat to the officer’s safety.