You Have the Right To Remain Tasered?

[drgrant]

All F*CKING tasers should be BANNED.

If you have to pull a taser, you should be pulling your gun. I am sick and tired on seeing these videos. This is not a non-lethal alternative and IMHO, if you have to resort to these methods, lethal or not, pull your service piece.

So, what you're telling us is, that you would have preferred the
officer to just shoot the guy (with a high probability of his death
resulting) or maybe use a baton instead? (and likely smash up
some of his bones in the process and cause the guy a lot of long
term pain and suffering). Or are you suggesting that him
brandishing a firearm would have stopped the guy from acting
like a jerk? (I've seen several videos where loaded guns being
pointed at a perp didn't stop the perp from being a d-bag, so, at
best, that probably only has a small chance of working if the guy
is already "off the rails". )

I'm trying to follow the logic there, but it evades me.

While I agree that a taser can still be lethal, it most certainly is
FAR less lethal than most other options, except for perhaps OC.
(I've never heard of anyone dying from OC, although I wonder if it
can cause allergic reactions with some? )

-Mike

 

[Jose]

All F*CKING tasers should be BANNED.

If you have to pull a taser, you should be pulling your gun. I am sick and tired on seeing these videos. This is not a non-lethal alternative and IMHO, if you have to resort to these methods, lethal or not, pull your service piece.

Maybe this is hitting home to me because my wife is pregnant, and there was a crying child in the car, but, F*CK me... That just turns my stomach.

So, where do you get your expertise on tasers?

Would you rather take a beat down or a bullet for telling a policeman to f*** off and walking away as he tried to peacefully arrest you?

 

[rscalzo]

pull your service piece.

No one EVER calls it a "piece".

I've seen several videos where loaded guns being
pointed at a perp didn't stop the perp from being a d-bag

Seen it first hand more than once.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

So, where do you get your expertise on tasers?

Would you rather take a beat down or a bullet for telling a policeman to f*** off and walking away as he tried to peacefully arrest you?

I have a heart surgeon and a neurologist in my family, and that makes me qualified. Throwing an electrical shock through someone can cause:

1) ventricular fibrillation
2) seizures
3) death of unborn children if a woman is pregnant

Number one, WHERE was the threat that required lethal force? By rights in that video, the wife should have been shot or tasered under your theory that they are dangerous.

This is not a tool to use lightly and this is as dangerous as pulling a service revolver. So, my point is, before you light someone up, you better know that you may as well be willing to throw a bullet in them.

 

[Jose]

I have a heart surgeon and a neurologist in my family, and that makes me qualified. Throwing an electrical shock through someone can cause:

1) ventricular fibrillation
2) seizures
3) death of unborn children if a woman is pregnant

Number one, WHERE was the threat that required lethal force? By rights in that video, the wife should have been shot or tasered under your theory that they are dangerous.

This is not a tool to use lightly and this is as dangerous as pulling a service revolver. So, my point is, before you light someone up, you better know that you may as well be willing to throw a bullet in them.

So tasers are deadly force is your opinion because someone in your family is a doctor?

Have any courts taken judicial notice of your findings?

I'm not going to argue with you, since you prefer to make up your version of the facts rather than stick to what is accepted as fact in court and by real experts in the use of force.

BTW, I was fully expecting his dumb wife to ride the lightning or eat some OC if she got any closer. She had more sense than her idiot husband and got back in the car ASAP.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

So tasers are deadly force is your opinion because someone in your family is a doctor?

Have any courts taken judicial notice of your findings?

I'm not going to argue with you, since you prefer to make up your version of the facts rather than stick to what is accepted as fact in court and by real experts in the use of force.

BTW, I was fully expecting his dumb wife to ride the lightning or eat some OC if she got any closer. She had more sense than her idiot husband and got back in the car ASAP.

I did not realize Judges are doctors!

That is right! You can do what ever you want, to anyone, and not suffer consequences when using these nonlethal tools! The truth hurts pal, and you are WRONG. Sorry to burst your bubble, but just like the "Pepper Ball Massacre" at Fenway, apparently Police are in serious need of training in Physics and some PreMed classes.

Society is too quick to adopt these methods, and I believe a lot of people are sustaining injuries due to their usage. How do you know that the person you are not tasing:
1) Has a heart condition
2) Has a pacemaker
3) Is Pregnant
4) Suffers from seizures

Yup, you know what you are talking about

 

[Jose]

Some people are in serious need of a dose of reality.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Some people are in serious need of a dose of reality.

Finally you realize you are wrong.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So shooting him would be better in case he has one of those conditions?

Although I don't discount that in some very tiny number of cases a person may die from being tasered . . . it's far more likely to occur more frequently from lead poisoning if the only alternative is to shoot them.

It's called "less lethal" for a reason!

Best way to avoid that possibility is not to be an ass or a "jail house lawyer" and comply with the officer. Later get your attorney to raise the issues or file a complaint/lawsuit. But you never win an argument with a LEO on the side of the road!

 

[dreppucci007]

Or when fat cops fall down.

That was a riot!

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

My real gripe is that these tactics are termed "nonlethal force": I believe a lot of Police Departments believe in what is being spoon-fed to them by the manufacturer's sales tactics, and not a lot of research has been done to prove that this is really a "safe" alternative (PepperBall Death in Boston). When reviewing the dozens of tasering videos, there seems to be a willingness to use these tactics as a first alternative, not as a backup to other methods.

I have the utmost respect to people who enforce the laws every day, and they deserve the best in protection. However, I believe the deployment of these "nonlethal" weapons are being overly used in situations that do not call for such force.

http://www.wound-ballistics.com/pages/4/

Mr. Lieberman joined a growing number of people, now at least 50, including 6 in June alone, who have died since 2001 after being shocked. Taser International, which makes several versions of the guns, says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heart conditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, the company says.

But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company's primary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful than other stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Taser has no full-time medical director and has never created computer models to simulate the effect of its shocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials for ethical reasons.

But neither Taser nor the military released the full study, only an excerpt. The full study remains confidential, military officials say. But last week, after the symposium on less-deadly weapons in Winston-Salem, N.C., the Air Force laboratory that conducted the study said that it had not found Tasers were safe.

The guns "may cause several unintended effects, albeit with estimated low probabilities of occurrence," the laboratory said. "Available laboratory data are too limited to adequately quantify possible risks of ventricular fibrillation or seizures, particularly in susceptible populations."

So, would you be willing to be tasered?

 

[ephemeratta]

Unreal response to this. I think we're seeing much more from people then simply their response to the video.

Here's what the news had to say.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/244686/4/

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Unreal response to this. I think we're seeing much more from people then simply their response to the video.

Unfortunately, I believe the response is appropriate: The use of "non-lethal force has been used as a crutch. Please see my prior update:

My real gripe is that these tactics are termed "nonlethal force": I believe a lot of Police Departments believe in what is being spoon-fed to them by the manufacturer's sales tactics, and not a lot of research has been done to prove that this is really a "safe" alternative (PepperBall Death in Boston). When reviewing the dozens of tasering videos, there seems to be a willingness to use these tactics as a first alternative, not as a backup to other methods.

I have the utmost respect to people who enforce the laws every day, and they deserve the best in protection. However, I believe the deployment of these "nonlethal" weapons are being overly used in situations that do not call for such force.

http://www.wound-ballistics.com/pages/4/


Quote:
Mr. Lieberman joined a growing number of people, now at least 50, including 6 in June alone, who have died since 2001 after being shocked. Taser International, which makes several versions of the guns, says its weapons are not lethal, even for people with heart conditions or pacemakers. The deaths resulted from drug overdoses or other factors and would have occurred anyway, the company says.

But Taser has scant evidence for that claim. The company's primary safety studies on the M26, which is far more powerful than other stun guns, consist of tests on a single pig in 1996 and on five dogs in 1999. Company-paid researchers, not independent scientists, conducted the studies, which were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Taser has no full-time medical director and has never created computer models to simulate the effect of its shocks, which are difficult to test in human clinical trials for ethical reasons.

Quote:
But neither Taser nor the military released the full study, only an excerpt. The full study remains confidential, military officials say. But last week, after the symposium on less-deadly weapons in Winston-Salem, N.C., the Air Force laboratory that conducted the study said that it had not found Tasers were safe.

The guns "may cause several unintended effects, albeit with estimated low probabilities of occurrence," the laboratory said. "Available laboratory data are too limited to adequately quantify possible risks of ventricular fibrillation or seizures, particularly in susceptible populations."


So, would you be willing to be tasered?

 

[the_doctor]

So tasers are deadly force is your opinion because someone in your family is a doctor?

Have any courts taken judicial notice of your findings?

I'm not going to argue with you, since you prefer to make up your version of the facts rather than stick to what is accepted as fact in court and by real experts in the use of force.

BTW, I was fully expecting his dumb wife to ride the lightning or eat some OC if she got any closer. She had more sense than her idiot husband and got back in the car ASAP.

Tasers are very dangerous. You don't respect the capability of the tasers out there. They can kill someone. Did you know that the tasers by design often impregnate the skin in order to carry the charge through?

There are some different models out there. The principal manufacturer had to change the basic model and its options in order for it to finally take off in sales.

Have you seen the case in Minnesota? Where the police officer decided it was illegal for an individual to ride their bicycle on the road? It was not illegal at all. There is a video regarding this. The individual decided to leave as the police officer was dangerous. The two police officers "tasered" him.

They had THREE police officers at that scene. The person was not trying to harm them. If they really wanted to stop him, then why didn't they gang tackle them like they used to do in the old days? Let us ignore that the guy was stopped illegally and how the cops wanted to have some fun with their new toy.

Bill

 

[Len-2A Training]

YOU are using street terminology ("non-lethal"), NOT police terminology.

It has been emphasized very strongly in LE circles after the Victoria Snellgrove incident that it is "LESS LETHAL" (than a gun) and not "non-lethal". That goes for pepperball and Taser. Also since that date, serious training has been implemented on the use of pepperball guns and Tasers, at least in MA (can't speak to other states). The Taser training and accountability procedures are so onerous that very few PDs have implemented them to date.

Every department or state has an approved "continuum of force" policy that dictates what an officer is supposed to start with an escalate upwards.

Problems with this particular video situation:

- First is always verbal commands. That did not work with this perp.

- Perp has his back to the officer and is walking away, therefore OC won't hit his face.

- Baton to back of knee MIGHT work, but the perp will be out of range by the time the officer draws the baton and if he chases after him, both of them may end up in the middle of the road which has heavy truck traffic on it.

- If he shoots him, oh well that is obviously inappropriate here.

- What is the officer left with? And you can't use tools that you don't have with you, so you use what you have. In this case the Taser.

The only thing I see as inappropriate here is the behavior of both perps. ALWAYS follow the orders of the LEO on the scene. Save your arguments to later and in a venue where you are at least somewhat on equal ground.

 

[kevin9]

If you have to pull a taser, you should be pulling your gun.

This is not a tool to use lightly and this is as dangerous as pulling a service revolver. So, my point is, before you light someone up, you better know that you may as well be willing to throw a bullet in them.

So given what you see and hear on the video, put yourself in the shoes of the officer, what would you have done when the belligerent punk disobeyed your commands and started walking away from you? Shoot him? Let him go and get into a chase situation? Hint: Consider Len's analysis.

So, would you be willing to be tasered?

As I said up front, if I acted like that person then I'm asking for my right to be tasered to be exercised.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

I still do not agree with the response to that situation. The driver was asking the officer specific questions and he was not replying with any answers. I still do not believe that tasering was the proper course of action in the end: "Less Lethal" is still LETHAL: I am sorry, but in the end, there were other options here [which lead up to the event] that could have prevented this situation before it escalated.

Again: To me, this officer had a crappy attitude to begin with. So the driver had a question as to the signage and refused to physically sign a note saying he was guilty. WHO CARES! If the person had no priors (the officer HAD to have checked in the computer when given the drivers license), wife in the car with a baby screaming, and the driver was obviously agitated... IMHO, the officer could not have assessed the situation more poorly.

So instead of saying, "Take it to court sir, and have a nice day!", which would be the simple way out. Instead of avoiding a confrontation the officer HAD to bust his balls by making him sign the copy of the ticket when the driver was obviously agitated in receiving one in the first place... The Officer was LOOKING for a fight: I see no reason then to take the driver out of the car and arresting him! DO you see any reason for that arrest?? Seems like an abuse of power to me, and poor situational handling by the officer.

I agree with The Doctor on this one: Police are subconsciously placing themselves into harms way and are using these tools WAY too often because, now, they have a "less than lethal" option. Instead of good Police work and using the skills picked up in College or in training, they resort to these methods to "enforce" the law. I am sorry, but in this particular case, I have to disagree and believe that the officer should be charged with excessive force.

Again, I am not saying that ALL tasering is bad, and there are situations where I fully agree in the usage. I just think that in the end, for the situations we are seeing as examples, it just turns my stomach because there appears to be other options the officer has at their disposal before engaging the suspect with lethal force.

Again: If you are willing to taser someone, will you be willing as training to be tasered yourself? I think if more officers had to experience 1/2 of that charge to see what it feels like, I think some people may think differently. Sadly, I am waiting for the day where an officer has taser pulled, it does not work (electrical/mechanical device, bound to fail), and now they are left with their "dick in the hand" when the person turns around with a weapon. If you are willing to pull the taser, you should have your service revolver in the other hand? No? Especially if you are the only one on the scene? If you HAVE to stop someone who is dangerous and not obeying commands?

Again: It just seems over the top and excessive in this case. If he was willing to pull the taser, why not the service revolver?

 

[MauserFreak]

I think it goes both ways the Cop was stupid and the person getting the ticket just happen to be dumber than he was. First off the side of the road is no place to argue a ticket that's what a courtroom is for. I would try to get out of the ticket as best I could but if it does not appear to be working then I would kindly ask the officer is there a place on the ticket to send in to contest it. Then go to court and plead your case and when you beat it, tell the officer better luck next time. It is funny when you use the system that is already in place you will prevail, I have contested 3 tickets in my life and won 2 and had a reduced fine on the other. The system works you just cant expect to pass go and collect 200 dollars, from the side of the road. Its life we all want to be right but there are times you just have to be inconvenienced to prove it.

 

[kevin9]

I still do not agree with the response to that situation. The driver was asking the officer specific questions and he was not replying with any answers.

False, listen very carefully. Every question that was asked was answered; he just didn't want to hear the answers. He was told why he was being pulled over and why he was being commanded to get out of the car

I still do not believe that tasering was the proper course of action in the end: "Less Lethal" is still LETHAL: I am sorry, but in the end, there were other options here [which lead up to the event] that could have prevented this situation before it escalated.

And they are??? I ask again, what would you have done?

Again: To me, this officer had a crappy attitude to begin with.

And the driver did not? The officer is going about his business and the driver is acting like a punk.

So the driver had a question as to the signage and refused to physically sign a note saying he was guilty.

The side of the road is not the place to debate the validity of the ticket. In this case the driver was WRONG; watch the video, the officer stops right in front of the sign! HE was the one giving the officer a hard time. Also, AFAIK signing the paper in not an admission of guilt. Last ticket I received I signed when I received it, fought it and won.

 

[hminsky]

I think the answer here is very simple, which is simply to make it a (capital) crime to act like a punk. Then the officer could pull his gun or taser without worrying about being second guessed, heck he could just beat the kid to death by the side of the road with a baton. I think it would raise the level of civility instantly, and would have secondary benefits for people besides policemen.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Unfortunately, I do not agree with your assessment. First off, does everyone who questions authority instantly become a "punk" if they have an adverse reaction to being pulled over for speeding? I am not too sure how many people are in a great mood when being pulled over.

The only speeding ticket I ever received was coming out of the Brighton Toll Plaza, about a mile going west. There was some construction going on and supposedly was marked with 35 MPH limit. I saw NO signage what so ever, and was clocked going ~60 MPH.

When I was pulled over, the State Police officer asked me:

1) If I knew how fast I was going? I said 60
2) Did I realized the speed limit was 35? I said no, there were no signs that were visible when I was on the on-ramp
3) Drivers license and registration. I handed that over...

[Waited 10 minutes]

4) Officer hands back the license and registration and gives me the ticket. He said I had 30 days to contest: I asked why I was receiving the ticket when the road was not posted as either under construction and limited to 35 MPH. He reiterated I had 30 days to contest and walked away.

DONE!

So, by your rational, I should have been asked to get out of the car and be arrested because I questioned why I was receiving a ticket? Or tasered none the less, since I was questioning the validity of the ticket?

The handling of the situation in the taser video is what I am saying is the direct breakdown of the situation: A Police Officer is in charge of any confrontation with a civilian: Unfortunately, he decided to handle the traffic stop the way he did, and the outcome was poor.

If the rational here is that, "Why fight the ticket with the officer, take it to court", then why did the Officer not realize the same point! When he assessed the law and gave the driver the ticket, that should have been that: Done! Hand over the ticket and be done with it. If the driver had no priors or was not a violent criminal, then just hand the ticket over and be done with it! Simple? Obviously it is not!

This also brings me back 20 years, when I went to a concert at Foxboro Stadium (yea, a long time ago), and I was returning to my car to find it broken into and nearly on fire. I was in my late teens and was frantic. I looked for any assistance that I could find as the parking lot was emptying out. As the cars cleared, I noticed a State Police cruiser parked at the corner of the lot, about 200 yards away.

So, I sprinted over to speak to the officer in the car. As I was approaching, I was waving my arms over my head, and noticed that the woman officer had reached down and pulled her service revolver and pointed it at me while sitting inside the cruiser! I stopped dead in my tracks and nearly fell on my face 20 feet away! I asked: "Can you please help me: My car was broken into and I have no one who I can contact". She holstered her sidearm and stated "This is not a State matter. Find a Foxboro Police Officer". She then drove off.

No offense, but I have found that the majority of street Officers I have been involved with either have a shitty attitude or they are just plain mean. I assume I should have been shot in the face for running over to a State Police Cruiser with a woman officer inside? I am sure if that happened, I would have been at fault. I guess I could have waited 20 years to now be tasered immediately, no questions asked.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You are applying MA rules/laws/standards to another state. That shows your refusal to accept that other places have different rules/laws/standards!

- In MA we don't need your stinking signature!!

- In SOME other states, the law REQUIRES your signature or, if you refuse, you get arrested. That is what happened here. Thus, the perp broke the law (refusal to sign) and by law was subject to arrest. [If you don't like that law, work to change it, don't blame the officer.]

- When you are under arrest (clearly explained by the officer), you have no right to physically walk away, start swinging your hands (even if pointing to signs), etc. but MUST do exactly what you are told by the officer. Anything else is ANOTHER CRIME (resisting arrest), and further digs the perp in deeper.

- When under arrest and you refuse to comply, all jurisdictions allow the use of force! Don't want that to happen, then simply comply. Save your arguments for the courtroom.

- He wants his Miranda rights read to him, but that ONLY applies if an officer is going to question you. This officer has heard enough from him, thus no need to read him his rights as he has no desire to question him any further. Again, shows ignorance of the perp.

- Only watched the video, didn't read any news story. Don't know anything about a screaming baby (other than the woman), don't know what relation she is to him, nor do I care as an officer or as an observer. None of that is relevant here. He broke 3 laws at least (speeding, refusal to sign, and resisting arrest) and that is all that matters in judging what happened.

 

[Jose]

Len, your logical, reasoned, and experienced-based arguments are lost on a couple of know-it-alls that are self-appointed experts on police use of force, Utah state criminal law, and medical effects of tasers.

Good try, but in vain I think.

 

[Jose]

No offense, but I have found that the majority of street Officers I have been involved with either have a shitty attitude or they are just plain mean.

Probably just responding in kind.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Len, your logical, reasoned, and experienced-based arguments are lost on a couple of know-it-alls that are self-appointed experts on police use of force, Utah state criminal law, and medical effects of tasers.

Good try, but in vain I think.

No: But I fear that the majority of officers are in the same, shitty frame of mind, and would rather have a conflict than avoid one. Apparently you appreciate a good fight and are willing to break someones skull open for questioning why you are being pulled over for speeding.

As for the argument that this is State law: The Officer should have warned the driver that not signing the form was an arrestable offense. Again, I fear that there should have been a warning BEFORE arresting the driver: The officer just seemed to eager to bust a complaining driver in the rice bowl.

IMHO: As another member stated in prior posts, that law should be changed to prevent confrontations in the furure.

So, you think it is acceptable to light someone up as opposed to reasoning with them? Hopefully you are not an officer of the law... And, yes, the truth hurts and you are wrong. You should be tasered yourself if you think this is a non-lethal weapon.

Oh, and by the way:

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=26953&highlight=Jose&page=2

+1

If I found my daughter hiding a gun against my will she would get the beating of her life. Period.

You must be an all around, angry, nasty individual to lay a hand on a child. If you are an Officer, you should really reconsider your line of work.

 

[kevin9]

Unfortunately, I do not agree with your assessment. First off, does everyone who questions authority instantly become a "punk" if they have an adverse reaction to being pulled over for speeding? I am not too sure how many people are in a great mood when being pulled over.

Mood and adverse reaction have nothing to do with it. Belligerence and non-compliance do.

The only speeding ticket I ever received was coming out of the Brighton Toll Plaza, about a mile going west. There was some construction going on and supposedly was marked with 35 MPH limit. I saw NO signage what so ever, and was clocked going ~60 MPH.

When I was pulled over, the State Police officer asked me:

1) If I knew how fast I was going? I said 60
2) Did I realized the speed limit was 35? I said no, there were no signs that were visible when I was on the on-ramp
3) Drivers license and registration. I handed that over...

[Waited 10 minutes]

4) Officer hands back the license and registration and gives me the ticket. He said I had 30 days to contest: I asked why I was receiving the ticket when the road was not posted as either under construction and limited to 35 MPH. He reiterated I had 30 days to contest and walked away.

DONE!

So, by your rational, I should have been asked to get out of the car and be arrested because I questioned why I was receiving a ticket? Or tasered none the less, since I was questioning the validity of the ticket?

That is not what I said. He questioned and refused to accept or hear the answer. You asked, got your answer, and moved on. You did not refuse to comply with any of the officer's instructions. Big difference.

The handling of the situation in the taser video is what I am saying is the direct breakdown of the situation: A Police Officer is in charge of any confrontation with a civilian: Unfortunately, he decided to handle the traffic stop the way he did, and the outcome was poor.

If the rational here is that, "Why fight the ticket with the officer, take it to court", then why did the Officer not realize the same point! When he assessed the law and gave the driver the ticket, that should have been that: Done! Hand over the ticket and be done with it. If the driver had no priors or was not a violent criminal, then just hand the ticket over and be done with it! Simple? Obviously it is not!

LenS already answered this question.

As far as officer attitudes I've found that what you expect to see is often what you get.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Life is really quite simple, oftentimes you reap what you sow!

When I was a kid, I learned to "respect authority", even if I disagreed with it.

The handful of times I was stopped (MV), I was very polite and I usually got "polite" back (one notable exception, but it was still a verbal warning).

When I wore a uniform, if I got "attitude" I gave it back. If the person was polite, they got that back with a "be more careful, have a nice day" response.

In the video, the officer told him that he was being arrested for refusal to sign the ticket. That is the LAW in that state (not MA) and assuming the perp didn't get his DL out of a CrackerJack's box, it was something he still should have remembered from Driver's Education! At that point, legally the time for argument and discussion is over and compliance with the officer is REQUIRED BY LAW! Don't do it and you suffer the consequences . . . and if that kills him, so be it!

You don't like those laws? Move there and try to change them. I agree that demanding a signature is confrontational vs. handing a ticket to the perp and saying "have a nice day". That is why a lot of states no longer require a signature. As a Constable, they used to require signatures in MA and dropped it for which I am very grateful. Forcing someone to sign something when they are in a shitty mood is problematic. But it is NOT up to the officer to ignore the laws, so he has to do what he is paid to do.

Most of your arguments ignore that the law there is different than here. What happened there would not happen here due to those differences. Maybe we are smarter in that regard? But when you evaluate what happened in Utah, you can NOT apply MA standards to that evaluation . . . it just isn't valid.

 

[Jose]

Oh, and by the way:

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=26953&highlight=Jose&page=2



You must be an all around, angry, nasty individual to lay a hand on a child. If you are an Officer, you should really reconsider your line of work.

Who the hell do you think you are to question my parenting?

 

[kevin9]

In God We Trust, it really helps your case when you resort to off-topic, ad-homium attacks against other members, NOT!

 

[Len-2A Training]

OK, let's NOT get personal here.

Keep ON TOPIC and ONLY on topic or the thread will be locked.

Thank you.