Bakersfield (?) Sheriff Donny Youngblood actually said, "... the problem with the [recent 9th Circuit Court] ruling is that a Taser is intended to keep a problem from escalating..." Read the rest here for complete context: [LINK]
Ah, let me contemplate that for a moment. ... (Difficult to concentrate with the music here.) Okay, let me make sure I understand his "logic".
What he's saying, if I understand it, is that - in order to eliminate the possible risk that a traffic stop might escalate to a situation requiring deadly force - he feels the need to have the option (at his sole discretion) to be able to proactively taser folks that do not even meet any of the long-established criteria to justify appling very 'intrusive' forms of 'force'. In other words, just to be safe, he'd like to have the option to electro-torture people that have been stopped for a traffic infraction, people that are clearly non-violent, and are not fleeing.
It seems like he wants to continue the taser free-fire zone out there.
He'd like us to trust his judgment. And the judgment of EVERY OTHER Officer out there (even the very worst of the worst). No limits. Not just trust him, but trust every other backwater hillbilly deputy with an IQ of 75 and armed with a taser.
Yeah sure... How's that been working so far?
Look - it's exactly like speed limits. Well *I* can certainly drive perfectly safely at speeds up to 90 or 100 mph on the open highway, but it doesn't mean that those *other* idiots should be allowed.
Sorry Sheriff, but there's a lowest common denominator problem here. It's not *you*, it's just those *other* idiots that have ruined it for the rest of you.
If you arrived here on direct link to a specific post, then you may click here if you wish to view all the latest posts on the Excited-Delirium blog.