Thursday, December 3, 2009

How Young Is Too Young To Be Tasered?

The Taser is a small device, often called an "electroshock weapon." The fundamental concept is that it uses electrical current to disrupt voluntary control of muscles and in stimulation of the recipients sensory nerves. Such jolts of electricity results in sharp pain and involuntary contraction of muscle groups.

So basically, the Taser is a hand-held weapon designed to overstimulate muscles and cause pain.

Now, with that definition in mind, let me tell you a story. The Hero of our story is a sturdy man, tall and in-shape. His job is supposedly defined as dealing with the lowest of the low, and standing between the citizenry and danger--he is a goon in a state-issued costume police man. His name is Dustin Bradshaw.

While the villain of our piece is a ten year old, little girl.

Now, our story takes place on in Ozark Arkansas, and what occurs is that a woman calls the police because her little girl is screaming and crying and not following her mother's instructions. Basically, acting like my three-year old immediately prior to a spanking.

So, the Brave Officer Bradshaw arrives at the scene, and sees the girl who is visibly distraught over...well something. Who knows, it could be just because Mother Dearest told her to go to bed. But she's distraught and upset. So as Brave Officer Bradshaw arrives, Mother Dearest tells him that the young girl is not listening, and that Brave Officer Bradshaw needs to use his Taser on her.

After all, the proper punishment for unruly children is the swift introduction of large amounts of electricity which cause pain and muscle spasms--and possibly death.

So, Brave Officer Bradshaw picks her up and physically carries her to the living room, where he informs her that she's off to jail. After all, not listening to your mother, and throwing a temper-tantrum in your own place of residence is a criminal offense in Arkansas.

Well, as expected, the little girl did not want to go to jail--therefore she kicked and screamed, and had the gumption, gall and temerity to strike the blessed officer of the state!

So, he did as any reasonable Blessed Officer of the State would do, and Tasered her.

Does this make you upset? Does this even bother anyone?

Because I'm disgusted by it beyond belief, and if you for some reason don't think it's true... well, here's the relevant bits from the article at Arkansas Online:
The girl was on the floor of the house screaming and crying. She refused to follow her mother’s instructions and the mother told Bradshaw to use his Taser.

Bradshaw carried the girl to the living room and told her she was going to jail, according to the report.

“While she was violently kicking and verbally combative, [the girl] struck me with her legs and feet in the groin,” Bradshaw wrote in the report.

“The subject was actively resisting arrest at this time,” Bradshaw wrote. “I was having a difficult time placing the cuffs on her and administered a very, very brief drive stun to her back with my Taser. She immediately resisted and was placed in handcuffs.”

Yeah, he's a BIG man all right.

While you're pondering the insanity involved in the fact that this goon policeman is willing and happy to electrocute a 10 year old little girl, I want to point you to a little history from the state of Florida.

The date: January, 2005; the place: Palm Beach, Florida. Douglas Dycus was arrested and charged with felony child abuse and domestic battery for using a stun gun as a discipline device.

What is the difference? They are both electric devices designed to apply pain in measured and controlled jolts. Why is what Douglas Dycus did felony child abuse, while the exact same actions from the Brave Officer Bradshaw justifiable--despite the fact that the little girl being tortured and abused by Brave Officer Bradshaw being 4 years younger that Douglas Dycus' son?

The difference of course is that little piece of state issued jewelry which grants a mere citizen with the awesome abilities of one of the Elect!

Yes, that glorious piece of tin which means that all who the bearer surveys must adore them, and worship their numerous sacrifices to the greater good of their own elite brotherhood. It is that beautiful chunk of tin which allows them the ability to weld weapons of death, and randomly hurt people because... well they had the gall to disagree with whatever drivel the Elect emitted from their mouths.

See, that's the problem here. The Brave Officer Bradshaw was called to a house because a girl was having a temper tantrum, and instead of telling the mom that she should treat her child as a child, he attempted to arrest the girl.

At no point, are we given a reason for the Brave Officer Bradshaw to threaten this child with arrest. The only complaints filed were in conjunction with this event are related to when said 10 year old dared to defend herself against a grown man who was attempting to forcefully take her from her home.

Let us remember something, that seems to have been forgotten in our rush to affirm the Clowns of the State with powers above the mortal's keen:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

Yes, read that, and understand. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a citizen can resist arrest up to and including taking the arresting officer's life if such is necessary.

Think about this, an illegal arrest is nothing less than assault and battery (defined in State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). as such, any person that is suffering under an illegal arrest has the same rights--and responsibilities--to protect their own persons as at any other time when repelling any other type of assault and battery.

What this officer did, was forcefully carry this young child away from her mother (read the article, he describes carrying her into the living room) and then telling her, that he's taking her to jail.

There was no crime, the only "domestic disturbance" was that the girl was not obeying her mother.

Yet, when this child attempted to protect herself from the equivalent of an assault and battery, she was electrocuted.

This is not what a police officer initially stood for!

What this is is an occupying military force which expects its orders to be instantly obeyed regardless of the legal status of said orders.

That is what our police forces have become, and worse, they are actively heading in that direction today.

And sadly, too many people, hyped up on the glories of CSI and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit believe that they don't have the rights which in truth they have--and among those is the right to resist an unlawful arrest.

Luckily, this 10 year old girl survived her electrocution.

Unfortunately, others have not always been so lucky.

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take these deadly weapons away from those all too willing to torture and kill our children.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home