one of them mentioned he was "taken to jail". Nothing about charges though.

wat

lol how butthurt are you to take a shot at me. My discussion with deuces was all about if doctors can perform a procedure without informed consent if they have a court order. The answer is obviously ****ing yes.

It would have been easier and more informative for either of you just to quote relevant legal authority, which would capture some of the nuances.

"I can stick stuff up your butt against your will if I have a piece of paper from the government saying that I can."

That's the issue--what exactly the piece of paper says and to what extent cops can "fill in the blanks" to shove things up your butt. Popehat is a former federal prosecutor and a good lawyer and he calls it torture. Volkah leans fairly conservative.

Please continue to be so butthurt you compare me to deuces. It's super awesome.

They both seemed to think there's a good chance the police actions will be upheld.

They both skew libertarian too, although I don't know what Orin Kerr's views are.

Well if you're complaining that the police can tazer you as opposed to a civilian (who can also carry tasers and whose tasering could be justified) then the discussion is on the method of restraint, not the right to restrain. A correct objection would be tasering or not the police or any other person doesn't have the right to restrain the father.

again, wat?

If I, as a civilian, try to taser someone who isn't about to harm another human being you can be pretty sure there will be assault charges in my future.

In the normal world stopping someone from from running into a burning building when there is a justifiable chance that that person will die is justified or at least a difficult decision and certainly isn't nanny stating, cop or not. For all the laughing at ikestoys, his world is a lot saner than yours.

Making decisions for another person is most definitely nanny stating.

You've deemed the other person's decision as unacceptable and feel that gives you the right to impose your 'correct' decision upon them by force.

Are you allowed to shoot someone who is about to shoot their self?

All right, I'll go into more detail.

Nanny stating is used in the sense that someone is imposing their decisions on someone else who the imposer deems rationally incapable but who you, as the observer, as being rationally capable. You don't think babies are being nanny-stated when their parents teach them or correct their behavior.

So far so good?

In the situation with the fire, notice I said "if there is a justifiable chance that the person will die". In other words the cop took the goal of the father, to save his child, and decided that the dangers involved were too great to achieve that goal and would end in the person's death. Therefore the cop decided the father wasn't acting rationally, perhaps emotion has overwhelmed his judgement, and the cop restrained him. Now it's not an easy judgement to make, sometimes mistakes are made, that's why they make movies about those kinds of decisions.

Probably.

Would depend on how persuasive you are in telling the jury about the danger to your own person (helps if you have a uniform ldo).

Would also be easier in a non duty-to-retreat state.

But in a lot of states you can shoot someone that's about to harm you or someone else, right? Does it matter who that someone else is?

Firefighters die all the time trying to save lives the last true hero in my book , Do we have cops standing by to stop them. Cops are programmed to secure scene and let it burn , there no longer in life saving but life taking. To stop someone from trying to save another is crazy to taser him and stop a father from trying is not right , would they have shot him had the tasers not worked. We had to kill him because he was going in a burning building to save his son , he knew the house he knew his son was in there he knew the risks. Is there a law against risk takers , do we tase base jumpers . People have been know to do amazing things to save loved ones lift cars do super human feats . But when you have police you must obey and submit to what ever they see fit , if they deem you child a lost cause then he is dead , even if there is a chance . I think we can see the focuse was shifted to lets tase these guy who refused are order , if you do that you will be tased , beaten or worse .

I find it hard to believe that the chief and officers thought this was ok , iv heard anal searchs before but this could be a test case in secret. To me lets say what ever you fit in your anus is yours. But unless you see a suspect put it in his anus , why would police think this is acceptable unless its a test case . Are cops so out of touch that this is ok , I mean if this is acceptable what line is drawn , iv never seen a elite rich anally probed, basically they can get a warrant to search anything based on a animal that cant speak , and can be made to respond to the handlers command or will.

this is an example of

this

You're getting carried away here.

Ok so your kid is slowly burning to death in front of you. You think you have a legit shot at saving his life. But some guy is standing in front of you. How much force is justified for you in this spot to get past this guy? Lethal force?

Does it matter if you are off a bit in how "legit" your shot to save him is?

You're right ikes in that you don't compare to me. You use some kind of "semantikes" whereas I speak in plain language. In your mind your semantikes is tight and valid, which is like the equivalent of people in the special olympics thinking they've won an actual gold medal. Little do they know, as do you little know, that their victories are only imagined to exist in the same reality and relevancy as other people. Most of the time when you think you have won an argument, others feel a sentiment not unlike when seeing the huge and pure down syndrome smile of a special olympics gold medalist. In fact you invoke that strange mixture of pity and amusement so often that one might say you are extra special.

He's right and you're wrong tho

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/196006...s-play-outside

Don't worry; I'm sure the responsible officers will be disciplined appropriately.