Texas Cop Nathanial Robinson Uses Stun Gun On Elderly Man Over Inspection Sticker

[Archimedes]

Only if you put the word "libertarian" in quotes. Without said quotes the statement shows how people want to redefine it to mean anything. People know the claims to libertarianism among the police defenders are not true ... except for when it is convenient to forget that said claims are not true.

Arctish, Archemedes, do you find it convenient or do you know Loren isn't libertarian?

As I said in my earlier post, he's someone who calls himself libertarian. I was remarking how odd it is for someone to describe themselves as libertarian whilst espousing views that seem to be the exact opposite (repeated defense of police use of violence at the slightest provocation). It's neither convenient or inconvenient to me for Loren to hold the views he does.

 

[laughing dog]

So according to Jimmy Higgins, if he doesn't like a position someone is taking that makes it a libertarian position.

Do you want an oppressive fascist government that controls every aspect of your life? According to Jimmy, that's libertarian. (And I'm giving Jimmy credit here, by assuming he doesn't want an oppressive fascist government.)

That straw man does not describe the position of Jimmy Higgins nor Loren Pechtel. You seem to believe you are the ultimate arbiter of who is and who is not a libertarian. Which is a rather bizarre position for any libertarian to proclaim if you think about it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So according to Jimmy Higgins, if he doesn't like a position someone is taking that makes it a libertarian position.

Do you want an oppressive fascist government that controls every aspect of your life? According to Jimmy, that's libertarian. (And I'm giving Jimmy credit here, by assuming he doesn't want an oppressive fascist government.)

That straw man does not describe the position of Jimmy Higgins nor Loren Pechtel. You seem to believe you are the ultimate arbiter of who is and who is not a libertarian. Which is a rather bizarre position for any libertarian to proclaim if you think about it.

According to laughing dog, I'm claiming that I'm a dictionary. Which is a rather bizarre position for any person to claim if you think about it.

Of course, laughing dog also said that when I quoted Rand Paul explicitly denying being a libertarian, that meant I was acting as an arbiter. So, laughing dog, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

If you answer at all (rather unlikely) and if you answer truthfully (if you actually answer it will probably be a truthful answer) you will say "no", which means I can quote you saying "no", which according to you means you are a libertarian.

 

[dismal]

Only if you put the word "libertarian" in quotes. Without said quotes the statement shows how people want to redefine it to mean anything. People know the claims to libertarianism among the police defenders are not true ... except for when it is convenient to forget that said claims are not true.

Arctish, Archemedes, do you find it convenient or do you know Loren isn't libertarian?

As I said in my earlier post, he's someone who calls himself libertarian. I was remarking how odd it is for someone to describe themselves as libertarian whilst espousing views that seem to be the exact opposite (repeated defense of police use of violence at the slightest provocation). It's neither convenient or inconvenient to me for Loren to hold the views he does.

Libertarians believe in laws and police. Hence in libertopia there will be both laws and police and police coming into contact with citizens who violate or are suspected of violating laws.

There would likely be fewer laws and thus probably fewer police interactions but there would still be interactions. (For example, there may not be laws against selling loose cigarettes or not having your car inspected, but there probably would be laws against robbing convenience stores and walking down the middle of the street.)

I'm not sure there is a libertarian position on how these interactions ought to play out. I think if libertopian police are threatened with deadly force, they would be able to return deadly force. If they are faced with an unruly suspect, they would use some level of force to subdue that unruly suspect. I don't think the unpleasant practical realities of policing can be simply tossed aside in the name of liberty.

 

[Archimedes]

I'm not sure there is a libertarian position on how these interactions ought to play out. I think if libertopian police are threatened with deadly force, they would be able to return deadly force. If they are faced with an unruly suspect, they would use some level of force to subdue that unruly suspect. I don't think the unpleasant practical realities of policing can be simply tossed aside in the name of liberty.

Indeed. What's at issue here is not whether or not police should exist and be able to use force to do their job, I was objecting to Loren's kneejerk defense of every single incident of police using force (up to and including deadly force) by arguing that if you don't want to get a beatdown or tasering (or worse) from armed employees of the government, you should unquestionably do what they say, otherwise you're basically asking for it.

To me, that doesn't sound very libertarian. And it doesn't either to Jason Harvestdancer who said "the claims to libertarianism among the police defenders are not true".

 

[abaddon]

Being for civil liberties doesn’t necessarily mean being for each and every individual’s civil liberties.

If you’re very for capitalism, which is the gain of property by unequal exchanges, then you can’t also be for equal respect of everyone. There’s an elitism inherent to capitalism. The Haves want people to play the game of profiting off of unequal exchanges in the correct manner (don’t grab it out of people’s hands but rather weasel it out with psychological manipulation), or else they’re thugs. The Haves want the guardians of property (aka police) to be obeyed very strictly because all non-compliant persons are threats to property. If you want in the The Club and have all liberties, you have to play The Game just so.

 

[laughing dog]

That straw man does not describe the position of Jimmy Higgins nor Loren Pechtel. You seem to believe you are the ultimate arbiter of who is and who is not a libertarian. Which is a rather bizarre position for any libertarian to proclaim if you think about it.

According to laughing dog, I'm claiming that I'm a dictionary. Which is a rather bizarre position for any person to claim if you think about it.

A straw man.

Of course, laughing dog also said that when I quoted Rand Paul explicitly denying being a libertarian, that meant I was acting as an arbiter.

A false claim.

So, laughing dog, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

I do not.

If you answer at all (rather unlikely) and if you answer truthfully (if you actually answer it will probably be a truthful answer) you will say "no", which means I can quote you saying "no", which according to you means you are a libertarian.

For a change, why not try to use logic and reality to form an argument and draw conclusions?

 

[Toni]

On the video, however, Robinson appears to try to snatch a piece of paper from Vasquez without success. Then, he grabs Vasquez's arm, twists it behind him and pushes him against the hood of the cruiser. After a brief scuffle, the cop reaches for both of Vasquez's arms and drags him the ground, out of camera range.

We obviously don't have the whole story but the guy apparently wasn't handing over a piece of paper. I can't think of anything they would think was relevant that shouldn't be handed to the cop.

If only the whole incident was captured on video and posted somewhere for us to see what happened.

The cleverly placed dashboard cams do not capture the actual assault by the police officer. That happened on the ground out of view of the dashboard camera according to the video on youtube.

Here's an update:

https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/ne...r-old-victoria-mans-tasing-gains-global-atte/

BTW, googling 'cop uses taser on 76 year old man' brought up a lot of hits, not all related to this incident. One involved a cop who tasered an elderly man who was driving a tractor in a local parade. The dispute was over where the parade route ended.

I guess people are right: we don't need to train cops how to handle contact with the public. They just need better weapons training.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At what point does an unarmed person in their 70s warrant being tazed?

 

[ksen]

At about 2 minutes in.

 

[dismal]

I'm not sure there is a libertarian position on how these interactions ought to play out. I think if libertopian police are threatened with deadly force, they would be able to return deadly force. If they are faced with an unruly suspect, they would use some level of force to subdue that unruly suspect. I don't think the unpleasant practical realities of policing can be simply tossed aside in the name of liberty.

Indeed. What's at issue here is not whether or not police should exist and be able to use force to do their job, I was objecting to Loren's kneejerk defense of every single incident of police using force (up to and including deadly force) by arguing that if you don't want to get a beatdown or tasering (or worse) from armed employees of the government, you should unquestionably do what they say, otherwise you're basically asking for it.

To me, that doesn't sound very libertarian. And it doesn't either to Jason Harvestdancer who said "the claims to libertarianism among the police defenders are not true".

In most of the cases that make it here reasonable people could disagree over whether the suspect has done something to precipitate the incident. Even in this case it could be argued that you should not get out of your car and move about with something in your hand when pulled over by the police. I seem to recall being told when you are pulled over that you sit in your car and keep your hands visible because police consider pulling someone over an inherently dangerous situation.

I'm not saying this officers actions were justifiable, but if they weren't it's not a libertarian v. non-libertarian issue. It's an issue of facts and circumstances.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed. What's at issue here is not whether or not police should exist and be able to use force to do their job, I was objecting to Loren's kneejerk defense of every single incident of police using force (up to and including deadly force) by arguing that if you don't want to get a beatdown or tasering (or worse) from armed employees of the government, you should unquestionably do what they say, otherwise you're basically asking for it.

To me, that doesn't sound very libertarian. And it doesn't either to Jason Harvestdancer who said "the claims to libertarianism among the police defenders are not true".

In most of the cases that make it here reasonable people could disagree over whether the suspect has done something to precipitate the incident. Even in this case it could be argued that you should not get out of your car and move about with something in your hand when pulled over by the police. I seem to recall being told when you are pulled over that you sit in your car and keep your hands visible because police consider pulling someone over an inherently dangerous situation.

I'm not saying this officers actions were justifiable, but if they weren't it's not a libertarian v. non-libertarian issue. It's an issue of facts and circumstances.

Would being in his 70s be a fact and/or circumstance?

 

[dismal]

In most of the cases that make it here reasonable people could disagree over whether the suspect has done something to precipitate the incident. Even in this case it could be argued that you should not get out of your car and move about with something in your hand when pulled over by the police. I seem to recall being told when you are pulled over that you sit in your car and keep your hands visible because police consider pulling someone over an inherently dangerous situation.

I'm not saying this officers actions were justifiable, but if they weren't it's not a libertarian v. non-libertarian issue. It's an issue of facts and circumstances.

Would being in his 70s be a fact and/or circumstance?

From a libertarian philosophical standpoint? I don't think so.

From a facts and circumstances standpoint? I suppose it could. If the cop thinks the guy has a gun it doesn't matter. But I would be less impressed by a claim the cop was afraid to wrestle with this guy than, say, Michael Brown. However, once you decide to wrestle with a cop you are treading into dangerous ground regardless of whether you are 70 or not. The cop could reasonably show more restraint with an older guy, but I think it's dangerous if you are the suspect to assume they will.

 

[Toni]

In most of the cases that make it here reasonable people could disagree over whether the suspect has done something to precipitate the incident. Even in this case it could be argued that you should not get out of your car and move about with something in your hand when pulled over by the police. I seem to recall being told when you are pulled over that you sit in your car and keep your hands visible because police consider pulling someone over an inherently dangerous situation.

I'm not saying this officers actions were justifiable, but if they weren't it's not a libertarian v. non-libertarian issue. It's an issue of facts and circumstances.

Would being in his 70s be a fact and/or circumstance?

Well , facts would include the fact that the vehicle in question bore dealer plates and as such, was exempt from the requirement to have a current inspection. Also from the video, no flashing lights are visible. The gentleman pulled into the dealership and exited the vehicle at which point he was confronted by the police officer. Quite reasonably, he pointed out the obvious dealer plates to the officer as clearly shown on the video. At that point the officer begins grabbing at the gentleman, wrestling him to the ground, tasering him while this elderly man was on the ground, demanded that he stand and then taser ed him in the leg effectively preventing the man from standing. Witnesses callled the police who arrived, stopped the attack on the elderly victim and then inexplicably transported the 76 year old victim to the hospital in the patrol car instead of calling an ambulance. The 76 year old victim was handcuffed during transport to the hospital.

 

[fromderinside]

In most of the cases that make it here reasonable people could disagree over whether the suspect has done something to precipitate the incident. Even in this case it could be argued that you should not get out of your car and move about with something in your hand when pulled over by the police. I seem to recall being told when you are pulled over that you sit in your car and keep your hands visible because police consider pulling someone over an inherently dangerous situation.

I'm not saying this officers actions were justifiable, but if they weren't it's not a libertarian v. non-libertarian issue. It's an issue of facts and circumstances.

Would being in his 70s be a fact and/or circumstance?

Sure. That and the fact that a 23 year old authority person was having trouble handling him. Nothing hurts so much one's pride being bruised when one is so young.

Hell it is even bad for oldies. I was about 50 when a drunk punk cut in front of us at a stop light. I jumped out of my car he jumped out of his. He even tried to scuffle with me as I pushed the drunken little so-of-a-bitch toward a convenient meter man who happened to be there. Why? I had my three kids in the car and he had endangered them while my youngest was completing a fatherly driving lesson.

Whoopie for emotional control on and off drugs.

 

[ksen]

Would being in his 70s be a fact and/or circumstance?

From a libertarian philosophical standpoint? I don't think so.

From a facts and circumstances standpoint? I suppose it could. If the cop thinks the guy has a gun it doesn't matter. But I would be less impressed by a claim the cop was afraid to wrestle with this guy than, say, Michael Brown. However, once you decide to wrestle with a cop you are treading into dangerous ground regardless of whether you are 70 or not. The cop could reasonably show more restraint with an older guy, but I think it's dangerous if you are the suspect to assume they will.

Where did the old guy try to wrestle with the cop?

 

[dismal]

From a libertarian philosophical standpoint? I don't think so.

From a facts and circumstances standpoint? I suppose it could. If the cop thinks the guy has a gun it doesn't matter. But I would be less impressed by a claim the cop was afraid to wrestle with this guy than, say, Michael Brown. However, once you decide to wrestle with a cop you are treading into dangerous ground regardless of whether you are 70 or not. The cop could reasonably show more restraint with an older guy, but I think it's dangerous if you are the suspect to assume they will.

Where did the old guy try to wrestle with the cop?

I didn't say he did.

 

[ksen]

Where did the old guy try to wrestle with the cop?

I didn't say he did.

Oh, maybe you were talking about a different 70 year old otherwise I have no idea why you'd bring up wrestling with a cop in a discussion about this incident.

 

[dismal]

I didn't say he did.

Oh, maybe you were talking about a different 70 year old otherwise I have no idea why you'd bring up wrestling with a cop in a discussion about this incident.

I also didn't say he had a gun.

You should have asked me about that.

 

[ksen]

that would have been ridiculous